Court reporter Tina
Blackwell is reporting outside Courtroom number 4 to Darren Corrigan in the TV
studio.
DARREN (in the studio): Tina
can you tell us a little bit about this sensational case which has divided men
from women, women from women and even feminists from feminists.
TINA: Yes Darren it is indeed a
sensational case. It is the case of an alleged unauthorised dream by one
William Edwards on the night of the 4th of August 2012 which the
plaintiff Tegan Millford featured without her permission. If convicted Mr.
Edwards will have been found to be in breech of the new Sexual Crimes and
Harassment Against Women Act passed just last year by having or causing to have,
an image, real, reproduced or imagined of another person without consent. This
is believed to be the first case of its kind testing the law.
DARREN: What has been the response of the public?
TINA: There is a large group of women assembled outside the court
building waving placards, some demanding castration, others with the words
“misogyny”, “rapist”, “kill all men” and one placard with a cartoon of the
defendant hanging. They are opposed by
mens rights groups and also some women saying the whole thing smacks of a witch
hunt; that this is witch mania gone overboard. There has been at least one
shouting match between two opposing protesters.
DARREN: Tina, will any action be taken over the protests?
TINA: No Darren. Although technically the protesters could be in contempt
of court by way of sub judice both the police and the presiding judge feel that
to take any such action would be insensitive to all women survivors of crimes
against women. Even the more extreme activists are considered to be acting out
of trauma. As a result the court and police are acting with all due sensitivity.
The court does not want to be seen to be silencing women.
DARREN: Thank you Tina. We will back should there be any further
developments in this case.
********
Inside Courtroom no.
4.
CLERK: (As Judge Morgan arrives),
All stand please.
Before assuming his
seat Judge Morgan embraces Tegan Millford and reassures and comforts her.
JUDGE MORGAN: (Softly to Tegan so
that few others can hear) Oh this must be dreadful for you Ms Millford.
This will be quiet an ordeal for you. Don’t worry. Try not to be nervous. This
is your day in court. (Judge Morgan gives
Tegan a hug.)
The Judge takes his
seat and all present sit down. The judge notices Mr Edwards and gives ever so
slight a micro sneer.
CLERK: The crown verses Mr Edwards.
PROSECUTOR: Thank you. I would like to call to the stand Ms Millford.
DEFENCE COUNSEL: Your worship if I could just interject and approach the
bench.
JUDGE MORGAN: Certainly Mr. Hughes.
Mr. Hughes
approaches the bench and quietly talks to Judge Morgan/
DEFENCE COUNSEL: (softly) Are
you sure you are fit and impartial to the task of judging this case? I noticed
how partial you were to the plaintiff. Justice must not only be done but be
seen to done and to be seen to be done in a fair and impartial manner.
JUDGE MORGAN: (Softly) I
believe myself to be fit for the task. I take your objection on board but it is
overruled. You have the option of appealing the case on that basis should your
client so wish.
Mr. Hughes returns
to his seat.
JUDGE MORGAN: If you can continue Ms. Woodbridge.
PROSECUTOR: Thank you. I call to the stand Ms. Millford.
Tegan makes her way
to the stand.
CLERK: Do you Tegan Millford swear to tell the truth, the whole truth and
nothing but the truth?
MS MILLFORD: I do.
PROSECUTOR: Ms. Millford do you know the defendant?
MS MILLFORD: I do.
PROSECUTOR: Can you identify the defendant in the court today?
MS MILLFORD: I can. (Pointing)
There he is.
PROSECUTOR: In what capacity do you know the defendant?
MS MILLFORD: We work in the same place.
PROSECUTOR: Which is?
MS MILLFORD: The Department of Human Affairs.
PROSECUTOR: Can you tell the court of the events of March the first Ms.
Millford?
MS MILLFORD: Yes.
Karrie at work told to me how William was sharing a dream he had the night
before. I was a part of his dream and there was some sexual content. Errr!
Yuck! It just gave me the shivers. I was mortified and shaken.
PROSECUTOR: Ms.
Millford can you recall how you felt when you learned of Mr. Edward’s dream.
MS MILLFORD: I
felt creeped out. I felt dirty. I had been violated. I was as good as taped. (Tegan now has tears swelling up and Judge
Morgan passes over a box of tissues) Thank you. (To the judge)
PROSECUTOR: Ms.
Millford, how did this affect the quality of your work?
MS MILLFORD: Yes
it did. I was unable to concentrate. Every time I looked up I could see that
creep who had had that demeaning dream. I was making mistakes at work and had
been given feedback on my drop in performance.
PROSECUTOR: How
else did this incident affect your life Ms. Millford?
MS MILLFORD: I was unable to sleep properly or to
concentrate on anything I was doing. I was not as communicative and I was
sometimes short tempered. It was as if I had been scared by battle. I was
walking around in a daze. I was walking around in a fog.
PROSECUTOR: To
what would you pin down as the cause of your affliction?
MS MILLFORD: To
him. To that creep sitting right there. He always worries me now since that
dream. (Tegan has a look of fear and
contempt on her face.)
PROSECUTOR: Thank you Ms. Millford.
JUDGE MORGAN: Mr.
Hughes?
DEFENCE COUNSEL:
Ms. Millford, do you know Kevin Durant?
MS MILLFORD. Yes
he also works in my workplace.
DEFENCE COUNSEL:
Did he once relate to you a dream in which you featured?
MS MILLFORD: Oh
yes but that was different.
DEFENCE COUNSEL:
Oh! How exactly? Was that not also a dream with sexual content?
MS MILLFORD: It
was flattering coming from Kevin. It wasn’t creepy. He’s cool. I would
willingly appear in any dream of his. He’s funny. He’s a very attractive young
man. William is short, dorky, doesn’t have any muscles, he has that awful curly
hair, glasses and all the girls talk about him never having any dates. Who
would ever want to go out with him? I bet he’s still a virgin. No woman would
ever want anything to do with him. To imagine him thinking of me or dreaming of
me, oh YUK! He lives in his basement gaming and that’s all he does in his spare
time.
DEFENCE COUNSEL:
Did not Mr. Edwards once help you with a computer problem? Did you not
cordially engage him in conversation for hours as he was fixing your computer? Was
Mr. Edwards a creep when he was fixing your computer? Do you always cordially
engage creeps in interesting conversation for hours?
MS MILLFORD: Yes
he fixed my computer but that doesn’t mean I owe him anything. I didn’t engage
him in “interesting conversation” for hours. He just rattled on for hours about
a whole lot of crap and I had to listen to him because he was after all holding
my computer hostage while he was fixing it. He used my distress to bore me
senseless. All I could do was listen. But I still don’t like him one little bit
even if I did talk a little with him. He’s still an absolute creep.
DEFENCE COUNSEL: Ms.
Millford you just use men for whatever purpose you see fit, even “creeps” if
you have to and you only take offence at unattractive men to the point of
hysteria because of “poor little old me”. You really are very immature.
PROSECUTOR:
Objection your worship. The character of Ms. Millford is immaterial to the
case.
JUDGE MORGAN:
Sustained.
DEFENCE COUNSEL:
Would you say that the offences of men against you are subjective and nothing
objective which can be tested?
PROSECUTOR:
Objection your worship. It is not for a witness to give legal opinions.
JUDGE MORGAN: Sustained.
Mr Hushes it has been established by precedent in the Pratchet v. Robbins case
that the emotional damage of a plaintiff is THE objective standard tested. You
will not be allowed to probe the character of Ms. Millford any further.
DEFENCE COUNSEL:
Ms. Millford what was your reaction when Kevin told you about his dream
involving you?
MS MILLFORD: Kind
of nice. I mean he is good looking and all.
DEFENCE COUNSEL:
How can you expect Mr. Edwards to be aware of your reaction? Whether it would
be positive or negative.
PROSECUTOR:
Objection your worship. If you could clear the courtroom of the jury.
The judge nods to the foreman and the jury leaves the
courtroom.
PROSECUTOR: It
has been established also in the Pratchet v. Robbins case that foreknowledge of
possible damage done by the defendant or lack thereof has no bearing on the
culpability of the defendant for that offence. Ignorance is no defence. The so
called “Asperger’s
Defence” was overruled on appeal and is now called the “Asperger’s Burden.”
DEFENCE COUNSEL: That
ruling can not be allowed to nullify the basic principle in law that the
offender needs self responsibility. Honest mistakes can not attract the same
penalties as conscious offences.
PROSECUTOR: The objective
measure of the victim’s emotional response nullifies ignorance of effect just
as ignorance of a blood alcohol level does not nullify the offence of drink
driving.
JUDGE MORGAN. The
Prosecution’s objection is sustained. Please recall the jury. (Jury returns.) Members of the jury you will disregard the
last answer by Ms. Millford in your deliberations.
DEFENCE COUNSEL: Ms.
Millford how can you expect Mr. Edwards or anyone else to control the subjects
of their dreams.
MS MILLFORD: But he still
dreamed of me. That is still creepy. (Tegan is unsteady
on her feet and falls over with tears welling up. She is helped to her feet by
court officials.) I am so giddy. Just the thought of that awful day
sends my head into a spin.
DEFENCE COUNSEL: No more
questions your worship.
JUDGE MORGAN: Thank you
Ms. Millford. (Tegan is unsteady as she steps down and
receives support from friends and supporters. She has tissues to her eyes.)
PROSECUTOR: I call to the
stand Mr. Edwards.
Mr. Edwards
is worn in.
PROSECUTOR: Did you Mr.
Edwards have or cause to have an image of Ms. Millford on the night of August
4?
MR EDWARDS: Yes but it was
a dream. How….(he is cut off mid sentence)
PROSECUTOR: Thank you Mr.
Edwards. No one cares for your excuses.
MR EDWARDS: But how can I
be held responsible for what I involuntarily dream?
PROSECUTOR: I’ll ask the
questions here if you don’t mind Mr. Edwards. If you care to dream of Ms.
Millford what other lascivious thoughts about her have been going through your
mind quiet consciously? (Tegan puts a tissue to her
eyes and sobs.)
MR EDWARDS: But that
assumption is not what I am charged with.
JUDGE MORGAN: Be quiet Mr.
Edwards and answer the question.
DEFENCE COUNSEL: Objection
your worship. The prosecution can not be allowed to question the character of
the defendant if the plaintiff can not similarly be questioned.
JUDGE MORGAN: Overruled.
The prosecution is testing the defendant for character. Justice can not be done
if such vital evidence is precluded. Continue Mr. Edwards.
MR EDWARDS: I don’t know.
Maybe. Maybe not. I don’t keep a diary of every thought that passes through my
head.
PROSECUTOR: You don’t have
to Mr. Edwards because you’re just a perverted misogynistic overgrown teenage
gamer who can’t get a date and I bet you have an impressive porn collection. I
bet you breathe heavily over your porn girls as you mentally rape them.
Pathetic men like you disgust me and they disgust most people. You are a
sleaze. Does it make you feel good? Am I right?
DEFENCE COUNSEL: How is
this line of questioning relevant your worship?
JUDGE MORGAN: I am going
to allow it. Mr. Edwards?
MR EDWARDS: No no no!
You’re twisting everything to paint me as someone ugly. You’re just shooting
poisonous barbs at my heart. You BITCH!
PROSECUTOR: (She has a nice smug smirk) There you have it. The
porn visualising, rape apologising, self entitled, fantasising misogynist man
child finally makes his appearance. This ladies and gentlemen of the jury is
what the suspect has revealed himself to be. He doesn’t have a life so he
devalues the lives of those he most despises and detests, women.
JUDGE MORGAN: Contain
yourself Mr. Edwards or I will consider a contempt of court charge.
MR EDWARDS: I’m sorry your
worship.
DEFENCE COUNSEL: I object
your worship. You can not allow this sort of aggressive questioning and
entrapment by the prosecution.
JUDGE MORGAN: Overruled.
Character is very much the issue here.
PROSECUTOR: Mr. Edwards I
am handing you a copy of the statement you signed on the night you were
arrested, the 6th of August. On page 17 2/3 of the way down can you
read the highlighted section?
MR EDWARDS: “I visited Ms.
Millford on June 17 because she had requested my help to fix a computer
problem”
PROSECUTOR: Did you
really? Your worship I am going to play some security video footage of the
apartment complex where Ms. Millford resides. (Footage
shows William Edwards entering the building.) Now observe the date of
the footage. What does it say? There it is (pointing
with a laser pointer), the 16th of June. (Grasps from the courtroom.)
MR EDWARDS: Well I must
have got my dates wrong.
PROSECUTOR: You must have
indeed. What else have you got wrong? Just how reliable are you at telling the
truth Mr. Edwards? How many other lies have you told Mr. Edwards?
DEFENCE COUNSEL: We want
it on record that the prosecution has not shared this evidence with the
defence. This is unethical and can not be used as evidence.
JUDGE MORGAN: I will allow
it. However the prosecution must now furnish this evidence with the defence.
PROSECUTOR: As you wish
your worship. Mr. Edwards on page 12 of your statement you said your work was
satisfactory if you can read it highlighted.
MR EDWARDS: Yes.
PROSECUTOR: I will hand
you a copy of your latest work performance report. Look at the highlighted
section and please tell the court what it says.
MR EDWARDS: “Performance
has declined”.
PROSECUTOR: So not only
are you unreliable with the truth but you also withheld certain information.
Well Mr. Edwards what I want to know and I am sure everyone here wants to know,
what else are you withholding?
MR EDWARDS: But that
performance feedback was just 2 week ago, way after my interview with the
police.
PROSECUTOR: But the report
is of a 3 month period and that includes the date of your police interview.
You’re being economical with the truth aren’t you?
MR EDWARDS: No. My work
has not been the same because of this charge hanging over my head. I really
have been persecuted as you would not believe. (William
sobs and shakes.) I’m just being picked on for no good reason.
JUDGE MORGAN: Pull
yourself together and stop these crocodile tears. Did you have to practice to
get those tears perfect? Trying to manipulate the emotions of the good people
of the jury. Well it’s not going to work.
MR EDWARDS: NO! (Crying.)
PROSECUTOR: No more
questions your worship.
JUDGE MORGAN: Mr. Hughes.
DEFENCE COUNSEL: Thank
you. Mr. Edwards can you tell the court a bit about yourself.
MR EDWARDS: I lead a quiet
life. Haven’t done a lot of dating. I’m rather inexperienced in that area. I
just work for the public service. I live with my mother. For hobbies I do some
gaming, Dungeons and Dragons role play, King of Thrones. I spend quiet a bit of
time on the computer. I also love trains and trams and I build models true to
history replicas.
DEFENCE COUNSEL: Mr.
Edwards do you have any romantic designs on Ms. Millford?
MR EDWARDS: No.
DEFENCE COUNSEL: What is
your relationship with Ms. Millford?
MR EDWARDS: We work at the
same place. The only interaction I have had with her is that she asked me to
look at her computer at home with which she had had problems.
DEFENCE COUNSEL: Would you
say you have lascivious thoughts about Ms. Millford? Are you a sleaze about her
or any other woman?
MR EDWARDS: No. I am not a
sleaze. I’m just an ordinary young man.
DEFENCE COUNSEL: Although
not a popular young man with the ladies.
MR EDWARDS: No. I’m not an
alpha male but that’s not a crime. I’m just me. What sort of male, alpha, beta,
omega or whatever should not colour an action as criminal or not. It’s not
fair.
DEFENCE COUNSEL: How do
you account for your dream involving Ms. Millford?
MR EDWARDS: It’s just a
dream that doesn’t hurt anyone else. No one should be so easily offended. An
unconscious dream can not be an offence with intent and it is especially unfair
for the same dream to be nothing at all for another person. This is legalised
harassment.
DEFENCE COUNSEL: Thank
you Mr. Edwards. No more questions your worship.
(William
steps down)
JUDGE MORGAN: I will
adjourn for today and tomorrow we will hear the expert evidence.
********
Back in the TV studio.
DARREN: The case of the unauthorised dream has been adjourned till tomorrow. At the scene is Tina. Please tell us what happened today.
TINA: Thank you Darren. Yes as expected the prosecution painted the defendant as a live in the basement gamer boy who can not get a date and who harbours lascivious thoughts about women and in particular Ms. Millford and he is generally a sleaze; someone who women do and should fear. The prosecution also attacked the defendant over inconsistencies in his statement to the police. The defence countered by presenting their client as an average nice young man. The defence is also questioning the justice of holding someone to count for their unconscious dreams.
DARREN: How is that one washing out?
TINA: We have not heard the expert evidence but we can expect that to be given tomorrow.
DARREN: I understand there were emotional scenes today in court.
TINA: Yes Darren Ms. Millsford broke down in the stand as she was giving evidence and needed to be given assistance to get to her feet. Judge Morgan handed her some tissues. The defendant also broke down although some including interestingly the judge believe this was an act of crocodile tears and the judge said as much.
DARREN: It has been said that this trial will be a test of the character of the plaintiff and the defendant. Has this been bourn out?
TINA: Yes Darren Character was very much at the centre of proceedings today. The defence did try to question the character of Ms. Millford but Judge Morgan disallowed this. The character of the defendant however was questioned as being central to the veracity of the allegations.
DARREN: What is your reading of the Judge?
TINA: Well on entering the courtroom Judge Morgan embraced and reasurred Ms. Millford and this may be a sign of where his sympathies lie.
DARREN: Thank you Tina. We will now speak to a legal expert sitting next to me. He is Geoff Tawnbey, a senior counsel, barrister and eminent lawyer. Now Geoff much of the testimony has been what is called 3rd party hearsay. This is unusual in law. Why has it been allowed in this case?
GEOFF TAWNBEY: The law now defines some crimes as so exceptional, so egregious and so violent and unacceptable that 3rd party testimony is admitted where the community views it likely that those responsible would not otherwise be brought to justice. This has been extensively criticised. It was first applied to terrorism and treason and other crimes of war. With the new law last year crimes against women were added to the list of excepted crimes. The criticism is that we may be on a slippery slope and more and more due process will be whittled away.
DARREN: And many people have commented that the defendant is made to answer for an unconscious dream.
GEOFF TAWNBEY: This is unusual but when the law was framed it was felt that women could be severely damaged by even unexpressed images by the demeanour of the man in question. Once again this has been criticised but the determination to be proactive on women’s issues by legislators and to be seen to be proactive by the electorate overcame this objections.
DARREN: Now Judge Morgan is a chrematistic character and a controversial one. What do you Geoff make of the judge?
GEOFF TAWNBEY: Yes Judge Morgan is a big man. He stands a strapping 6 foot 5 inches tall and he is well built with his height and muscle bound. A very intimidating presence in any room. He has been a life long champion of women’s rights and has a history of very little tolerance for male offenders against women. He has long been a campaigner against prostitution and a champion of the Nordic model where prostitutes are not criminalised but their clients are. He has also campaigned against pornography online and offline.
DARREN: Judge Morgan embraced and comforted Ms. Millford as he entered the court in what looks to be not a message of impartiality.
GEOFF TAWNBEY: The judge is the patron of a number of organisations dedicated to women’s rights and female victims of crimes and we clearly know where his heart lays but you’re right it doesn’t send a good message of impartial jurisprudence. The defence may exercise its option to appeal in the wash up after this trial.
DARREN: How would that play?
GEOFF TAWNBEY: We know that the Appeals Court has increasingly become short and impatient with appeals from men involving offences against women so the defence may well find little succour there. Judge Morgan did convict a man last year for passing down the same street frequently near to his place of residence on little more than the fear instilled in the female plaintiff and that sent shivers down the spine of civil liberties groups. Judge Morgan was unrepentant going as far calling civil libertarians “misogynists”. That conviction WAS overturned on appeal in what is becoming a somewhat anomalous ruling in the recent history of the Appeal Court.
DARREN: The judge represents a departure from the axiom of “justice is blind” meaning it is neutral in its jurisprudence.
GEOFF TAWNBEY: The judge has criticised the concept of “justice is blind”. He believes instead that justice has to be passionate and angry about wrong doers. If a judge doesn’t care then how can he really do justice? He is a warrior for good against evil and he lets everyone know in no uncertain terms where his sympathies lay. His is a black and white view of the world. The judge has been criticised for his philosophy of jurisprudence by many in the legal profession including myself but he has won a lot of friends in various causes.
DARREN: Thank you Geoff.
GEOFF TAWNBEY: Thank you.
DARREN: Next we will talk to maverick backbench member of parliament Marcus Reid. He is known for having just the occasional opinion on issues and hasn’t shied away from controversy.
MARCUS REID: Good evening.
DARREN: You have been critical of the Sexual Crimes and Harassment Against Women Act from the outset and voted against it.
MARCUS REID: I criticised it for its vague language and its potential for arbitrary abuse by women with any axe to grind and for moving what are not really offences or are only minor offences into the excepted class, the same class as terrorism and that is sheer madness. It’s hysteria. It’s a witch hunt. This case realises all my worse fears. This case is EXACTLY the reason this law should never have been passed and why it needs to be repealed at the earliest opportunity.
DARREN: You received death threats as a result of your stance.
MARCUS REID: Indeed and these death threats have returned with the start of this trial. We have a bunch of self righteous petulant immature professional victims bullying anyone who does not agree every last point of their insane religious doctrine. IT IS UGLY. REALLY REALLY UGLY! Blind Freddy can see it, the deaf man can hear it, the dumb man can articulate it and the little boy in the crowd can see that the emperor has no clothes. These are ivory tower academic feminists who wouldn’t know real life if it bit them on the bum bust knowing what everyone else should do, see and think for both men and women. In the end this law will turn around and bite women as well in the law of unintended consequences. It takes a university education to lose your common sense and it takes a university education to lose your ability to think clearly and thank God I never went there. I have received my education at the University of Real Life. What we are seeing here today in court is an absolute disgrace. It’s travesty of justice.
DARREN: What is your opinion of Mr. Edwards?
MARCUS REID: I think he is innocent of doing anything wrong atall except for just being himself. I don’t know what his politics are but that doesn’t matter. The magnitude of the injustice is so enormous. I wouldn’t care if he was politically in favour of everything I am against because this case is beyond those sorts of differences. No one, not even my worse enemies should have to face this sort of outrage. Dreams can not be used to define intent. It is wrong. He is guilty only of not being good looking. He deserves a fair go and he is not going to get it. This law targets aspies, incels and all socially awkward men. What Mr Edwards has done is so trivial and yet the consequences could be so great. He could have his life ruined for really nothing. He could even get the death sentence because that is an option for excepted crimes. This is a nightmare. I feel for Mr. Edwards. He must be in a very lonely place right now.
DARREN: You may want to define those terms for the benefit of the viewers.
MARCUS REID: By aspies I mean those men with asperger’s syndrome. Incel is short for involuntary celibacy. In fact I would charge feminists and the men who follow in their wake like puppies of being guilty of misincelry, a term I created. By that I mean hated of incels. To these women a “good man” is one who bullies lower ranking males. I could go on with theories if time permitted. Judge Morgan is one of these men. He is a jackass strutting around like a peacock, harassing lower ranking males to the applause and the amusement of the ladies.
DARREN: You are certainly known straight speaking and colourful language and you have not disappointed us today.
MARCUS REID: I speak honestly to my passions and that sometimes means colourful language. I speak what needs to be said.
DARREN: Thank you Marcus for your time.
MARCUS REID: Thank you.
DARREN: No doubt some of these comments will stir up another Twitter storm. I have here to give an opposite point of view to Marcus the well known feminist writer and columnist Anne Travis. Anne you have just heard what Marcus Reid has said about the case. What would be your response to him?
ANNE TRAVIS: Marcus has not failed to deliver his usual finger down throat diatribe which we have all come to expect from this political loner with few friends. Listening to that gargle of misogyny, that bunch or sour grapes and patriarchal privilege made me laterally feel sick in the stomach. It was as though he was personally banging me with his phallus. That was like rape but we can not expect any better from a male Neanderthal like him.
DARREN: We were hoping to set a debate situation between Marcus and you but you declined. Can you explain why?
ANNE TRAVIS: To argue with misogynists is to validate and dignify misogyny. It would be to make it look like a reasonable position. I am not going to do anything to make Marcus Reid look good. Mr. Reid has never had to put up leers and cat calls on the street or being pinched on the bus. If he really had any heart he would be calling on all men to take responsibility for the sexist behaviour of their sex. A REAL man doesn’t whinge about the petty problems of men while ignoring the misogynist slights that women have to put up every day. No man ever has to worry about being raped on the street or being taken advantage of while drunk. Every male has privileges that no woman would ever know. You only have to witness the wage gap. Men find a way to favour their own every time.
DARREN: Marcus spoke about Mr. Edwards being in a very lonely place.
ANNE TRAVIS: Why should we be talking about the comfort of privilege boy in the dock when our focus should be on the suffering of Ms. Millford. She is the one who has been going through merry hell and who has suffered a life time of oppression at the hands of the patriarchy.
DARREN: If Mr. Edwards is in the dock how can you claim he has privilege? After all he is the defendant.
ANNE TRAVIS: If there was a woman standing trial do you think she would stand ANY chance of getting a fair trial? Of course not. She would be shouted down by men’s groups. Mr. Edwards is getting a completely fair trial and that is his male privilege. As for Mr. Edwards being “in a lonely place”, quote unquote, I couldn’t disagree more. Mr. Reid pretends to have sympathy and empathy with Mr. Edwards but it’s not true. It’s the old male club protecting their privilege. Men don’t have feelings. They only have interests. They can not feel aggrieved or hurt or hard done by. Men are not much better than the apes. Women evolved into humans. Men have remained in a state of arrested development. In fact I think you can say the Mr. Reid is guilty of anthropomorphising men as humans or rather gynomorphising feelings men don’t really have. The use of logical arguments by men against feminism is proof they have no real emotions. Logic is a sign of masculine patriarchy because they have no real reach towards community. Mr. Edwards blames the legal action for his adverse work performance. What he needs to do is man up to his responsibilities and acknowledge his culpability as a male. Meanwhile Ms. Millford has really suffered as a victim of patriarchal abuse to the extent that her work performance has been affected. Rather then whinge about HIS work performance as a privileged male he should ponder his role in affecting his female colleague’s ability to apply herself at work and his affect on her in the other areas of her life. ’
DARREN: You seem to be implying that all men are just animals.
ANNE TRAVIS: You are surprised by this? Why should you be? Look at the evidence Darren. Men have always got in the way of social reforms and the advancement of civilisation. The arguments of men’s rights groups in promoting patriarchy just lack logic.
DARREN: Many have expressed concern that the diminished due process gives rise to a risk of a miscarriage of justice.
ANNE TRAVIS: Not at all. The very word “miscarriage” is a female condition centred on the prime thing that all women can do and no man can ever do. That is life givers. Without the possibility of a physical miscarriage no man can ever appreciate a legal miscarriage. It’s just not possible. No man feel it. Due process is predicated on the sexist assumption that women need to have their testimony challenged because there may be “false accusations”. This completely negates the fact that women do not make false accusations. We need courts to support survivors, not interrogate them as criminals themselves. Judge Morgan, a close personal friend of mine well understands this. He has really been a trail blazer in jurisprudence. Even so if a one in a million to one case a miscarriage of justice does occur then this could only benefit the man concerned. In prison he can consider the disadvantaged position of women and have his consciousness raised in respect of gender issues.
DARREN: That’s all we have time for Anne, thank you for your time.
ANNE TRAVIS: Thank you Darren and GIRL POWER!
********
The next morning in
the TV studio.
DARREN: The trial of Mr. Edwards resumes today. We will cross to Tina at
the courthouse for the latest developments. Good morning Tina. I believe you have some
late news.
TINA: Good morning Darren. Yes Judge Morgan has charged some of the
protestors yesterday with contempt of court. These are various groups in
support of Mr. Edwards. Although many pro Ms. Millford feminists have also
possibly in breech of sub judice such as “kill all men” and “hang William
Edwards” Judge Morgan has ruled it is important not to deter the many real
victims of sexual crimes against women from seeking redress. The judge said
that the men’s groups were showing “gross insensitivity” to such victims. He
also said that the pro Mr. Edwards groups do not represent any real victims and
that therefore there is not the same need for sensitivity. The police outside
the court building today are moving on any protestors campaigning for Mr.
Edwards but are allowing feminists campaigning for Ms. Millford to remain.
Yesterday about 30 pro Edwards and 20 pro Millford protestors were arrested on
other charges. All but 17 of the pro Edwards protestors have been released
without charge and none 20 pro Millford protestors have been charged and all 20
have been released. The 17 pro Edwards who have been charged have now been
bailed to appear in court at a latter date.
DARREN: What can we expect today from inside courtroom number 4?
TINA: Well today we will hear the testimony of expert psychiatrists
testifying for the defence and the prosecution. This case has also generated
quiet a lot of interest in the twitterverse with the hash tags #WeLoveYouTegan,
#MarcusReidIsADick and #KillEdwards trending.
********
Inside courtroom
number 4.
PROSECUTOR: Your worship the prosecution is concerned about certain
comments made by the member of Parliament Marcus Reid last night. We are
concerned that these comments may constitute contempt of court.
JUDGE MORGAN: Yes Ms. Woodbridge I am aware of such comments made by Mr.
Reid last night. I have called Mr. Reid on the phone this morning and we had
what I believe was a very constructive discussion. He was very contrite about
some of his comments and expressed this to me. I believe the result was
satisfactory.
PROSECUTION: Thank you your worship.
DEFENCE COUNSEL: We believe that our client may be prejudiced by comments
in the media and on social media. We do not believe our client can now receive
a fair trial.
JUDGE MORGAN: Thank you Mr. Hughes. I am aware of these issues but given
that the allegations concern an excepted offence I am extending the provisions
of excepted cases to extend leniency to those concerned.
DEFENCE COUNSEL: You have not extended leniency to those pro Mr. Edwards
protestors who have been charged with contempt of court.
JUDGE MORGAN: I have already
stated my reasons for this decision Mr. Hughes. Ms. Woodbridge you can
continue.
PROSECUTOR: I call Dr. Julia Crow to the stand.
Dr. Crow is sworn
in.
PROSECUTOR: Dr. Crow can you tell the court in what capacity you are
giving evidence and a little about your area of work?
DR CROW: I am a psychiatrist and my work is primarily on post traumatic
stress syndrome or PTSD for short. I have published several papers on the
subject based on my clinical experience with the condition.
PROSECUTOR: Doctor, can you tell us a little about PTSD?
DR CROW: The condition was first described among war veterans of war as
the after burn of a traumatic experience in the absence of the trauma which
gave rise to it. It relates to “battle fatigue” and “shell shock” as described
in previous generations. The effects are varied between individuals but include
personality disruption, poor sleep, rapid mood swings, and inability to hold
employment, hyper arousal, and flashbacks and if these persist for a period of
more than a month. The results affect families and marriages of the affected
patients. Latter, clinicians noticed that many of the symptoms of PTSD were
also present in patients who had not had war experience but had undergone other
traumas. These include sexual assault, non-sexual assault, an injury or
accident, domestic violence and acts of terrorism. Recent work in the
neuro-sciences has shown actual observable effects in the human brain as per
MRI scans. You can turn off the trauma inducing trigger but you can not so
easily turn off the trauma.
PROSECUTOR: Doctor, can you tell me in what capacity Ms. Millford came
under your treatment.
DR CROW: Ms. Millford was referred to me by her workplace as a result of
poor performance feedback following the account of the predatory dream of her
by a co-worker.
PROSECUTOR: Can you briefly describe how Ms. Millford presented?
DR CROW: She was in a daze, she didn’t care who she was or if she should
be alive in a few years. It was my opinion that Ms. Millford was traumatised.
PROSECUTOR: Is there any way in which the account of trauma by Ms.
Millford could not be an account accurate to reality?
DR CROW: In my opinion it could not be anything but accurate. There is no
way such suffering could be fake. There was too much emotional power and that
is the clue to the veracity of the symptoms.
PROSECUTOR: Are you of the opinion that the trauma of your patient is the
result of the alleged behaviour of the defendant?
DR CROW: There can be no doubt about it.
PROSECUTOR: So you say that the defendant is directly responsible for
your client’s trauma.
DR CROW: I would.
PROSECUTOR: Thank you Dr. Crow. No more questions.
DEFENCE COUNSEL: Dr. Crow how do you establish the validity of trauma as
separated some other condition causing delusions like narcissism? Could it not
be argued that being offended by someone else’s dream to the point of trauma is
really manifesting narcissism in the form of solipsism?
DR CROW: No. I do not believe so. What we have here is the triggering
behaviour and the observable effects in Ms. Millford. There is a direct line from
cause to effect.
DEFENCE COUNSEL: Is it reasonable for a dream of someone else to induce
trauma? Could not such a reaction point to problems within the “traumatised”
person which are independent of a trigger, real or imagined? After all Ms.
Millford did not respond in the same way to a dream of her by another
co-worker.
DR CROW: The two different persons were clearly different sorts of
triggers. In one the dream was thought of as flattering. In the other it was
unwelcomed harassment to the point of inducing trauma in Ms. Millford. It was
threatening and it was to this that Ms.
Millford reacted. It is like the difference between consensual sex and rape.
The same act is in one case is consensual and in the other it is criminal. In
one there is an enjoyable experience and in the other there is trauma.
DEFENCE COUNSEL: Are there not symptoms displayed by Ms. Millford which
could be characteristic of hysteria and neurosis? If so how do you as a
clinician discriminate between the two?
DR CROW: We refer to the body of work detailing cases of similar
conditions and we find that these cases of sexually induced trauma are all
consistent.
DEFENCE COUNSEL: Could enough cases of poorly or incorrectly diagnosed
reinforce a poor or incorrectly diagnosed another case.
DR CROW: No. That would mean I was not an expert in these matters. Yet
here I am today giving evidence as an expert witness. The symptoms of the plaintiff
must also match what is described in the Diagnostic Symptoms Manual.
DEFENCE COUNSEL: No more questions your worship. I would like to call to
the stand Dr. Steve Webb.
Dr. Crow stands down
and Dr. Webb is sworn in.
DEFENCE COUNSEL: Can you tell the court a little of your work?
DR WEBB: I am a clinician treating patients for various conditions
including trauma and I also work in social psychiatry. This field is concerned
with understanding behaviour in a wider social context. I have had several
papers published in peer reviewed journals. I have also studied and written on
the subject of moral panics and public hysterias.
DEFENCE COUNSEL: In your view what would be the precipitating factors in
the condition of post traumatic stress disorder or PTSD?
DR WEBB: In my view PTSD is known
by hyper arousal, re-experiencing the traumatic event, avoidance of situations reminiscent of that event and feeling
worse about the world and if these symptoms last for more than a month.
Situations precipitating PTSD could include war, sexual violence or accidents.
DEFENCE COUNSEL: Would you accept that a dream by a third party could
constitute a trigger for PTSD?
DR WEBB: I would not. The boundary between what is traumatic in a
disabling sense and what is normal perambulation of life is obvious at extremes
but is blurred to the point of becoming social and political questions towards
the middle. We rely of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual for definitions. For example take
height. Is an 8 feet man tall? Of course, without a doubt. A 7 foot man? Yes.
How about 6 foot 6 inches? Still yes but not morbidly so. What about 6 foot
nothing? Well he is taller than the average man but not by much. He would still
be in the range of height of most men. At the extremes height becomes a medical
condition. To ascribe PTSD arsing from a dream by a third party becomes less of
a clinical question and more of a sociological question.
DEFENCE COUNSEL: How then would you account for the claim of trauma
arising from knowledge of a third party’s dream?
DR WEBB: I have written widely on public hysterias. Through history
episodes of panics repeatedly occur like the witch trials. They may start off
with a danger, real or imagined, and then these escalate into mass delusions.
The response galvanises the tribe for action against the danger. The collective
amygdala then sets off what you might
call a “red queen” effect. That is for individuals to retain the same social
and psychological relationships and trade offs in transactions with other
people an enhancement in amygdala function is required to the point
that reality testing can actually be disadvantageous and socially isolating.
Effectively the cerebral cortex either stands down on matters related to the
particular panic or is employed in developing rationales for irrational
behaviour.
DEFENCE COUNSEL: Could you
perhaps define some of these terms?
DR WEBB: Yes. The red
queen effect is named after a Lewis Carroll character in “Alice Though the
Looking Glass” who needed to run faster and faster on one spot just to keep up.
It is a concept in biology used to explain evolutionary escalations of
particular traits, an arms race effect. I extend this is social interactions in
the same way. There is a meme selection process going on in witch hunts. A meme
like a gene but it is an idea which can be passed on between people or not
depending on certain criteria. The cerebral cortex is the frontal part of the brain
where reasoning occurs and the amygdala is an older area of the brain which
kicks in initiate emotional responses to stimuli.
DEFENCE COUNSEL: Thank you doctor. Can you
think of any modern manifestations of this phenomenon?
DR WEBB: Yes. One can think of McCarthyism in the 1940s and 50s, the Satanic Ritual Abuse panic and
of course the rape culture hysteria of modern times and I would posit that
trauma stemming from a dream by someone else is an escalation of this panic.
Once activated a public panic takes on an ever increasing hunger until short
circuited.
DEFENCE COUNSEL:
Thank you doctor. No more questions.
PROSECUTOR: You
spoke of rape culture being a mass hysteria. It seems to me that any cause you
disagree with is the result of a public panic and not real. Is that not just
ipso facto?
DR WEBB: I
wouldn’t say so. I look for reality testing claims. When arriving at diagnoses
I do not simply rely on the feeling of clients to guide me. I recognise that
people form their impressions in an environment of social interactions; that a
widely held view is not necessarily a true one or will pass reality testing.
PROSECUTOR:
Doctor are you not discounting the truths of your patients by being so
sceptical? Does this simply add to the oppression of traumatised patients?
DR WEBB: Many
therapists with that attitude have treated patients affected with “alien
abductions”, quote unquote. They have not so much treated their patients as
reinforced their delusions. The idea that a “rape culture”, quote unquote is
real because of the reported feelings of enough people is as silly as alien
abductions being real because so many people wouldn’t have the same delusions.
Punishing people on the basis of what is the emotive word of one person against
another not only flies in the face of testing reality, it also lays the
groundwork for much injustice. As in the case of satanic ritual abuse so too
with the rape culture hysteria. Prosecuting someone for a dream takes this
madness to another level.
PROSECUTOR: But
doctor alien abductions are not real. You are comparing rape which is real with
alien abductions which are not. Ditto with witches.
DR WEBB: Can I
tell you about a German Jesuit priest in the 17th century by the
name of Frederick von Spee. He wrote a book called “Cautio Criminalis” which
condemned the witch trials of his day. So much of his logic rings true of the
rape culture hysteria today. He was certain that many and perhaps most of the
accused were innocent. Furthermore he believed witches actually existed. His
concern was with the almost total lack of due process. He bemoaned German
society of the day which periodically broke out in episodes of witch hunting. He
was criticised for supporting witches. He was a very courageous man writing in
the way he did. He ran the risk of being accused himself of witchcraft. There
are similarities today. Today the opponents of the rape culture narrative are being
similarly condemned. We can recognise the same poisonous atmosphere affecting
debate on the rape culture issue today.
PROSECUTOR: Yet
critics of feminism and the rape culture narrative have never been harmed or
put to death. A charge of “misogynist” does no harm.
DR WEBB: Critics of
the rape culture narrative like myself routinely receive death threats. By way
of contrast, names ascribed to feminists are said to do harm. No man wants to
be called a misogynist and that has been the purpose of verbal attacks, to
bully opponents into silence.
PROSECUTOR: So
you base all your theory on personal sensitivities?
DR WEBB: Not at
all. I apply the principle of equivalence.
PROSECUTOR: No
more questions your worship.
Dr Webb stands down. The prosecution and defence now
sum up.
PROSECUTOR: Members
of the jury now that the evidence has now all been heard your task is consider
the gravity of the offence given to Ms. Millford. We have seen how visibly
affected Ms. Millford was in giving her evidence. You have seen how the
defendant Mr. Edwards has grossly given offence to Ms. Millford by his
unauthorised dream featuring her. He has given rise to an image damaging to the
mental health of the plaintiff. The defence by contrast have twisted this very
real crime into some act of public hysteria and tried to pretend that no crime
even took place. The defence has dragged out the straw man of the witch hunts
and alien abductions to paint my client, myself, feminists and all women in a
negative light. They have not established that no harm came to Ms. Millford,
instead stating that my client has either imagined the harm into self harm done
to her or that she is an actor in a society wide melodrama. Ladies and gentlemen
sexual crimes are NO melodrama and anyone who says so is guilty of adding to
the hurt already suffered. We have REAL damage and REAL harm. My client
deserves justice and deserves to know that the message that sexual crimes and
sexual harassment will not be tolerated. Your verdict MUST be a message which
will make men take notice. As members of the wider community you have a duty to
safe guard public safety. For this you must find the defendant guilty.
DEFENCE COUNSEL:
Members of the jury when considering the evidence you need to think about a run
away wagon. It is easier to stay on board a run away wagon than to jump off on
to terra firma, even if the crush site destination is in sight ahead. This is
the dilemma facing you. The defendant is in the line of sight of a run away
panic. You must have the courage to take the uncomfortable step off the run
away wagon. Mr Edwards today depends on your collective wisdom. On your
shoulders today is the ruination of his life or a victory for common sense. We
have heard that the case brought by Ms. Millford depends not only on what he
has done but who he is. If he was more to the liking of the plaintiff we would
not be in court today. This is a radical departure from the norms of law based
on equality before the law. Are we to expect that Mr. Edwards should have asked
the permission of Ms. Millford before dreaming of her? We have heard from Dr.
Webb about public hysterias. We are being asked to allow an impossible
obligation of etiquette as a precedent for we know not what in the future. Is
this not oppressive etiquette? This is the return of Jim Crow but this time he
discriminates against gender, not race. We are here today almost like a lynch
mob ready to hang a black man for looking the wrong way at a white woman. The
only difference is that race is not a factor here today and we have the
pretence of impartial justice. For this reason ladies and gentlemen of the jury
I ask you to look out at the horizon and to look ahead. We are on a run away
wagon and there is no rational driver. It is risky to jump off but in the
interest of justice this is your duty today. You MUST fine Mr. Edwards not
guilty.
JUDGE MORGAN:
Ladies and gentlemen of the jury you have heard all the evidence and you must
now retire to consider your verdict. What is on trial here today is the guilt
of Mr. Edwards of the crime of sexual harassment. It is not the sanity of
society at large or the factor of mass hysteria. You, the jury must not see
yourselves as activists in that regard. Our job today is justice for all women
at the hands of abusive men by considering the crimes of one man. I instruct
you only to consider the facts of the abuse and not the desirability of the law
or its possible reach. That is not your job.
The jury members depart for their deliberations. The
jury returns 10 minutes later.
JUDGE MORGAN: Can
the foreperson of the jury please stand. (He
stands.) Of the charge of a breech of the Sexual Crimes and Harassment Against Women Act by Mr. William Edwards has
the jury reached a verdict?
JURY FOREPERSON:
We have your worship.
JUDGE MORGAN:
What then is your verdict?
JURY FOREPERSON:
Guilty your worship. (Mr. Edwards is
visibly shaken.)
JUDGE MORGAN: Are
all members of the jury in agreement.
JURY FOREPERSON:
We are your worship.
JUDGE MORGAN:
Thank you. The jury is dismissed. I now turn to the defendant Mr. William
Edwards. Mr. Edwards you have been found guilty by your peers. You have committed
a most heinous offence and your punishment will reflect this. The option for
the death penalty exists for excepted crimes like yours. (A sunken horrified look comes over Mr. Edward’s face.) However the
death penalty would not be justified in your case. You are a diminutive twerp,
a contemptible non entity for whom death would warrant a greater significance
to your miserable life than is fitting. Death is only for REAL men. You are a
disgrace to your gender. Your example brings ignominy to the
male race. It is no wonder that with men like you that males have been brought
so much into disrepute. You will not be imprisoned. Instead I will give you a
suspended sentence. You will be on probation for 9 years and I further add the
condition to your suspended sentence that you will make sufficient sperm
donations to a sperm bank to cause the conception and birth of 10 babies. For
each you will be required to pay child support amounting to 11% of your income
per child until their respective ages of maturity. Failure to meet this
financial obligation will be a breech of probation conditions and punishable by
law. Case closed Mr. Edwards. Now get out of here.
CLERK:
All stand.
Judge stands up from the
bench. The paths of the judge and Mr. Edwards cross. Judge Morgan grabs Mr.
Edwards by the collar. He looks down at Mr. Edwards and speaks. Mr. Edwards has
fear on his face.
JUDGE
MORGAN: (Overheard.) You son of a
bitch. If I see you again I ought to….(Court
officials separate the two.)
********
A press conference the Member of Parliament Marcus
Reid is making a press statement.
MARCUS REID: There
has been concern that my remarks last night were possibly in contempt of court
and were also deeply offensive to all women and in particular to victims of sex
crimes. I appreciate that by speaking in the way I did that I added to the
wounds carried by survivors. As a man I am contrite in the ignorance of women’s
issues and I am contrite in the violence against women in which ALL men are
complicit. For the rape victim no day really dawns. For the rape victim the sun
never rises. For the rape victim it is all night forever. I support laws which
punish harassment of sexual crimes and I believe it is necessary and essential
that such laws be excepted laws because the need to bring justice for victims
is greater than the rights of offenders. As Thomas Byrnes said that the crime
of rape is worse than murder. Better murdered than raped.
JOURNALIST: The
judge spoke to you today by phone. Has your retraction of those comments and
contrition today anything to do with that conversation?
MARCUS REID: It
is true that Judge Morgan and I talked today about the case and my remarks last
nights. After listening to the judge I agreed that I had been wrong, that my
remarks could constitute contempt of court and that the comments were
offensive. Not just offensive to the plaintiff in the case but also to all
survivors of sexual crimes and to all women in general.
JOURNALIST: So
Judge Morgan held a gun to your head and extracted your retraction?
MARCUS REID: I
wouldn’t say that. He gave me a better understanding of the issues in the case
and as a result I was persuaded. I thank the judge for the trouble he took to enlighten
me. That is all.
********
In the TV studio. Tina is outside the courthouse.
DARREN: The case
Ms. Millford verses Mr. Edwards concluded today and the jury has returned a
verdict of guilty for the defendant. To tell us more of today’s court drama we
cross over to Tina Blackwell at the courthouse. Hello Tina.
TINA: Hello
Darren. Yes the jury has returned its verdict after deliberating for only 10
minutes. That is an indication of unanimity among the members of the jury. Today we heard the expert evidence. Dr. Crow
testifying that the symptoms of post traumatic stress disorder were present in
her patient Ms. Millford and that the dream by Mr. Edwards was a precipitating
factor in that disorder. Dr. Webb by contrast believed in his opinion that the
trauma was an example of the “rape culture hysteria” resembling a witch hunt. He
said that public hysterias were less a clinical question and more of a
sociological question.
DARREN: How was
the summing up by the prosecution and the defence?
TINA: The
prosecution reminded the jury of their duty to convict on the facts as they saw
them. The prosecution also stated it was important to send a message to sexual
predators. The prosecution also accused the defence of using witch hunts as a
straw man argument. The defence drew an analogy of a run away wagon from which
it is risky to jump out of before it crashes. The wagon representing the public
panic of rape culture of which trauma stemming from a dream is a manifestation
and the risk being public ostracism of going against a dangerous popular
sentiment. The defence urged the jury not to set an oppressive precedent of
etiquette and that this would be a dangerous departure of the norms of the
law. In instructing the jury Judge
Morgan told the jury to consider only the facts of the case. He said it was not
their job to consider the implications but that they should only consider only what
were the facts of the allegation itself?
DARREN: We know
the jury deliberated for only a short time.
TINA: The jury
was out for only 10 minutes. This is taken to mean that there was strong
unanimous agreement at the very start. There was not much debate in the jury
room as there wasn’t really anything to debate.
DARREN: And the
punishment?
TINA: It is an unusual punishment but one which is
allowed as an excepted crime. Mr. Edwards must make sufficient sperm donations
to a sperm bank cause the birth of 10 babies and that each baby will require 11%
of the income of Mr. Edwards in child support else face prison of a breech of probation.
Mr. Edwards is at liberty tonight but it seems he is destined to go to prison
at some time. One can only pay out 110 % of one’s wage for just so long.
Arrears and prison are certain sooner or latter. Finally Darren on the way out of the courtroom
the judge grabbed Mr. Edwards by the collar and made his displeasure with Mr.
Edwards known. Judge Morgan is well known as a feminist activist and his
contempt for the defendant was barely hidden throughout the trial.
DARREN: Thank you
Tina. Next we will be talking to our legal affairs expert Geoff Tawnbey, senior
counsel, barrister and eminent lawyer about the meaning of today’s verdict.
Hello Geoff.
GEOFF TAWNBEY: Hello.
DARREN: How would
you sum up the case today Geoff?
GEOFF TAWNBEY: I
would say there are many worrying aspects to it. As the defence summed it up
the idea of equality before the law is being replaced by who are, who likes you
and who doesn’t like you. We are allowing too many offences to become “excepted
crimes” and this will come back to bite us including even the the champions and
cheerleaders of this law. The judge’s instructions to the jury are likely to be
the subject of an appeal. All through the trial Judge Morgan has not been seen
to be impartial but more of a referee also kicking goals for one of the sides.
It doesn’t look good. I have spoken before of Judge Morgan’s philosophy of
jurisprudence and my problems with it. In summing up Mr Hughes warned of a run
away wagon effect. I disagree with Judge Morgan’s instruction to disregard the
summation of the defence because a judgement by one’s peers means exercising the
sort common sense on what is an offence. Common sense which is so often lost in
legal mumbo jumbo. That is the value of the jury system. In his instruction to
the jury Judge Morgan seems to have disallowed the evidence of Dr. Webb.
DARREN: Can you
speak to the sentence imposed.
GEOFF TAWNBEY: Mr.
Edwards is free but not free. He has conditions attached to his sentence. He
must donate sperm sufficient for the birth of 10 babies and he must pay 11% of
his income in child support for each one individually. If Mr. Williams falls
into arrears he will be imprisoned. It is only a matter of time before he is in
prison.
DARREN: Because
no one can pay 110% of their income for very long.
GEOFF TAWNBEY:
Not without eating into your capital. I do not know how much capital Mr.
Edwards has but he is a young low level public servant and I would imagine his
capital if any would not be very substantial. But it is even worse than that.
The definition of income is what he can “expect to earn” based on his experience
and skills. So his 11% could be determined to be higher than 11% of his actual
wage. In fact if he finds himself unemployed his financial obligations for
child support will be based on what he could expect to be earning if he was
working. If his income increases so too will his financial obligation. If it
decreases his obligation will remain the same.
DARREN: What if
Mr. Edwards is infertile?
GEOFF TAWNBEY: In
that case he would immediately be in breech of the conditions of his probation
and will be in prison. This is allowed for what are defined as “excepted
crimes”. Some commentators have called this punishment the “white elephant
punishment”. In India
rulers use to require wrong doers to keep a white elephant and that would be so
expensive that it would bankrupt the wrong doer. That is the origin of the
term. The question is not if but when Mr. Edwards will go to prison.
DARREN: We saw
today Marcus Reid retract his comments last night.
GEOFF TAWNBEY:
Basically the judge would have read Mr. Reid the riot act in relation to
possible contempt of court and Mr. Reid’s retraction can be read on that light.
DARREN: I would
love to have been a fly on the wall during that conversation. Are there good
grounds for the defendant to appeal?
GEOFF TAWNBEY: I
would say there are strong grounds for appeal. On the other hand in recent
years the Appeal Court
has shown itself less patient with appeals from excepted cases, especially
those related to sexual crimes.
DARREN: Thank you
Geoff.
GEOFF TAWNBEY: Thank
you.
DARREN: Many feminists
are hailing today’s decision as a victory in the war against the sexual abuse
of women. Among them is feminist writer and commentator Anne Travis. Welcome
Anne.
ANNE TRAVIS: Thank
you. Nice to be here.
DARREN: How would
you describe today’s verdict.
ANNE TRAVIS: I
would describe it as a victory for justice. It is a victory not just for Tegan
but to all survivors of sexual abuse and harassment and to all women in
general. It sends a clear unequivocal message that predators will be punished.
It gives restitution to those who have been done wrong by the patriarchal
weapon of rape. If men think they have impunity from image based offences then
this case is a clear signal that we are coming after such abusers.
DARREN: The case
establishes that even dream images can be damaging to third parties. Is it
reasonable to expect men to control their own dreams? Do you think it’s
reasonable for the state to intrude into the subconscious?
ANNE TRAVIS:
Certainly it is. Dreams reveal the lecherous, creepy, predatory, patriarchal
and violent control which is manifest in their behaviour in the real world. As
for where the state should and should intrude let us not forget that forever
the state has been intruding into women’s bodies, telling them they can not
choose their own fertility. But we do NEED zero tolerance of the rampant
misogyny which is running loose as we speak.
DARREN: There has
been comment on the most unusual nature of the punishment handed to Mr. Edwards
by Judge Morgan.
ANNE TRAVIS: My
answer is very simple. Don’t do the crime in the first place. I find the media
focus on the fairness of the publishment for the DEFENDANT Mr. Edwards
interesting. Where has the media focus been when it comes to what is fair to
Ms. Millford. That is what I want to know. Ms. Millford is the REAL victim
here. Let us not forget that. It is sad
to see the bias in the media against Ms. Millford and even this channel and by yourself.
The point is not what is fair to the defendant but what is fair to the victim.
DARREN: Do you
not think that due process is an important aspect in the legal system?
ANNE TRAVIS: How
many villains hide under what is called “due process”. What it actually means
is men looking after men including Mr. privilege boy here.
DARREN: How can
that be? Men are given tougher sentences than women.
ANNE TRAVIS: It
is true some men are sentenced harshly and this is true especially of
minorities and that is a manifestation of the patriarchy looking after its
privilege. The legal system is a men’s club looking after its own. I hear all
the time what if a man is convicted of a crime like rape which he didn’t
commit. It’s an echo. My answer is that for a one in a million false conviction
for rape does a man good. It focuses a man’s attention on crimes against women.
It allows him time to reflect on his responsibility and his part in the
patriarchy. For the greater good of society you have to break a few eggs to
make an omelette.
DARREN: Many men
would not see it that way.
ANNE TRAVIS: That
doesn’t matter. It’s not about men. All the time we have men trying to make
feminists issues about them. Trying to barge their way into the feminist
discourse, silencing that discourse and shoving their discourse down our
throats in what is itself a virtual act of rape in itself. This is patriarchal
imperialism par excellence.
DARREN: But
surely if men are sentenced by laws then it is about men. And the accused need
to have allegations tested.
ANNE TRAVIS: That
argument is just so like a male. That is privilege talking. Assuming that the
victim might be lying when in fact these events are so traumatic that no one
would be imagine them if they were not true.
DARREN: But we
are talking about a dream, not a rape at knife point.
ANNE TRAVIS: But
it is the old habit of progression. First a creep, then a pervert, then a stalker
and finally a rapist and a killer. It’s about time men took responsibility for
their gender and acted to stop themselves and each other.
DARREN: What
would you say of those opposing the trial?
ANNE TRAVIS: I would say
‘Check your privilege’. But I think we’re talking about very few people with
very little resolve because they were today absent from outside the courthouse.
It is only the opponents who have been charged with contempt of court. None of
those who came in support of Tegan Millford have been charged because they were
not judged by the police to be disruptive. What does that tell you about these
opponents and their tactics?
DARREN: Thank you
Anne.
ANNE TRAVIS:
Thank you Darren.
DARREN: Next up
we will be speaking to Chris Wheatley. He is a syndicated columnist, freelance
journalist and president of the Sceptics Association. Good evening Chris.
Welcome to the program.
CHRIS WHEATLEY: Well
I could say ‘good evening’ except it is not really a very good evening. What we
have done today is light the fire bon fire of many a witch burning. Today’s
verdict and punishment represents a victory for hysteria over reason. We have
the extraordinary situation now where a person is guilty and another is
innocent purely based on the prejudiced preference of a plaintiff for the exact
same event. For Mr. Edwards the crime was not the dream which in any case he
could not help but the crime of not being attractive. What’s more is that the
“crime”, quote unquote, is defined as an “excepted crime”, quote unquote, the
same as terrorism. Why? This is a man who had a dream and for this his life has
been ruined. We are supposed to believe in one breath that women are very
strong and then in the next breath that women are fragile, so fragile that a
female will shutter like porcelain china at the slightest offence.
DARREN: But isn’t
rape dependant on the circumstances of consent and likewise the offense given
by Mr. Edward’s dream?
CHRIS WHEATLEY:
But the verdict is more a judgement of who someone is rather than what he has
done and done consciously. You will note that this offense can ONLY exist as an
excepted crime. There is NO way that normal due process would allow it. It is
made worse by a judge who holds a gun to the head of Marcus Reid and reads him
the riot act. Sure he was irresponsible speaking in the terms he did about
Judge Morgan and may have been guilty of contempt of court but it is outrageous
for a judge to just blackmail an MP in that way. Mr. Reid defected under
duress. When did the inquisition start? And then there was the Judge’s summing
up where he called Mr. Edwards a “diminutive twerp”, quote unquote. What right
did he have to let his personal feelings get in the way of the impartial
discharge of his duties?
DARREN: What of
the protests? The feminists supporting Tegan Millford have been more in
presence outside the courthouse than the supporters of Mr. Edwards.
CHRIS WHEATLEY.
This is where your previous guest Anne Travis was most dishonest. It was Judge
Morgan himself who decided that feminists could protest but that the supporters
of Mr. Edwards could not. On the first day both feminist and Mr. Edwards’s
supporters were arrested but ONLY the supporters of Mr. Edward were charged.
While we sleep we drift into a witch mania as Mr. Hughes and Dr. Webb warned.
DARREN: You have
a theory about this don’t you?
CHRIS WHEATLEY: Yes.
When one looks at the statistics what one finds is that women are far more safer
from violence than men and also that the crime rate for all violent crimes
including sexual assaults over the last 2 decades has dropped markedly. There
has probably never been a period in history when any group has been as safe as western
middle class women. Counter intuitively I think the “rape culture” hysteria exists
because women are so safe. If we think in
terms of evolutionary psychology females were looking for a male who was a
protector. In our evolutionary past women needed a provider who would feed her
and protect her and her children. So the biological need for a protector is
obvious but what is less obvious I think is the psychological need of women to
feel in need of protectors, a danger hunger. That is that women feel a need to
be in danger even when there is none. That results in a debasement of what is
harassment and what is rape to the extent that in the absence of a threat that
even an innocent dream is inflated in threat currency to the level of danger.
We are biological animals designed to build utopia but once built we are unhappy
to live there. Women want to be saved even if there is no danger and in that
case women will conjure up threats, real, exaggerated, imagined or fabricated.
DARREN: This is
completely at odds with the normal thinking.
CHRIS WHEATLEY:
Most sociological theories ignore or underplay the importance of biology in
human affairs. In so doing they allow basic biology to assert itself in the
same way but with different rhetoric. Thus instead of men doing terrible things
to other men to sort out the alphas from the betas and omegas we now have a
feminist rubric with which men, being “real men” are now “protecting” women to
a feminist narrative. Men like Judge Morgan. Now with instead of men and boys being
hazed in the “school of hard knocks” they are now being hazed within a new
social and legal structure to the drumbeat of feminists. The move to a more
gentle society envisioned by feminists has merely restored the old biological
values to a different rhetoric. Blind to biology feminists have instead being
swept along with it.
DARREN: Anne
Travis would no doubt debate your points.
CHRIS WHEATLEY:
She would disagree but she will not debate. I had offered to debate her before
and she has refused and then she claims critics will not debate her. This fits
a pattern. For example she earlier tonight misrepresented the lack of protests
in support of Mr. Edwards.
DARREN: That is
all we have time for tonight. Thank you Chris.
CHRIS WHEATLEY:
Thank you Darren.
DARREN: Some
Youtube footage has emerged from Ms. Millford’s channel. Here she is talking
about the loss of a male acquaintance to a tragic road accident.
Youtube footage is played.
MS MILLFORD: That is just so funny. The rescue team
couldn’t find a head. He was decapitated. His head just wasn’t there. (hilarity, laughing.) I can’t help it.
The head came off. Oh dear. What a surprise for the rescue team. He just came
to pieces in the collusion. (Now rolling
over with laughter.)
DARREN: The
comments on her channel vary from savage and nasty, shaming to “He was only a
man after all”, and “Yeah that is funny”. Well that is all tonight from the
newsroom.
********
The next morning in the TV studio. Darren crosses over
to Tina outside the residence of Mr. Edwards.
DARREN: Good
morning Tina. I understand you have a dramatic development in the case
concerning Mr. Edwards.
TINA: Yes Darren
I do. It is very tragic. Mr Edwards took his life last night. He was found by
his mother this morning in his basement. Police believe there are no suspicious
circumstances. He was found hanging from his basement. Very tragic for his
mother. Also present are pro Ms. Millford protestors singing “Cry Me a River”,
which must be especially hurtful for Mrs. Edwatds.
DARREN: Has there
been any reaction to the death of Mr. Edwards?
TINA: Many
feminists have said this is a good result and that Mr. Edwards has at least been
considerate of others by departing. Other feminists disagree with this saying
that his suicide is a patriarchal gesture of oppression of all women and that
he is escaping his obligations by this cowardly gesture. A one finger salute on
his way out. Very disingenuous to his loved ones like his mother. One woman
said to me that his suicide is selfish and the ultimate act of oppression. When
I mentioned his mother she said his disregard for her welfare was especially
egregious. If he had no thought for anyone else he should have at least thought
of her. This is a very harsh sentiment but sentiments have reached such heights
all through this trial.
DARREN: Thank you
Tina. We will cross over with any new developments on this story. Last night we saw a Youtube video from Tegan Millford.
This morning a video made by William Edwards has come to light. This is his
last video; in fact a suicide letter of sorts.
MR EDWARDS: The
world is so ugly. Everything is so dark. Even the rays of sunlight coming in
the window are like spears aimed at me. Even the pigeons have weapons. Their
beaks are pointing at me with dark intents. Everyone on the street have such
dark faces of anger. I am the football of everyone else. There is no one with
any sympathy. Everything is so cruel. I am to be bleed to death by a billion
mosquitoes and that is called “taking responsibility” and “being a man”. I can
not. I am at the end. No one wants to know and no one cares. The beginning of
the end was so trivial and the end of the end is so tragic. I hope Tegan is as
happy as Larry because I am not. I hope she is satisfied. I hope all women
especially feminists are happy because they have hounded me to death. There is
nothing else I can do. I am wearing the scarlet letter. I have been bullied to
death. Better to take whatever control I can and decide how this is to end. Why
be bled to death by others when I can take charge and decide the hour myself.
Bankruptcy, prison, and permanent infamy even without the rest. And for what? I
want peace now. I haven’t been sleeping well and when I have slept I have been
having terrible dreams. Last night I dreamed I was being stoned by bloodied
rocks and slung with mud by a mob with murderous intent with tiny swords for
noses on the way to the gallows. This is it. I will be dead in a few minutes.
Goodbye cruel world.
DARREN: That was
the last video by Mr. Edwards. Some feminists have hailed it as a good result
and the most responsible thing Mr. Edwards has done. Others like my next guest
Anne Travis disagree. Anne do you have a comment on Mr. Edwards’ video?
ANNE TRAVIS: I
think his suicide is such a cowardly act. It will ruin his mother. If he was so
selfish and self absorbed he should have at least spared a thought for his poor
mother. What must she be going through as we speak? He has put her through
enough hell as it is. It is the ultimate act of patriarchal oppression. He has
walked out on his responsibly. If he was a “real man” and not such a wuss and a
spineless coward he would have stuck around and made good on his financial
obligations imposed by the court. He had the opportunity to learn and benefit
from this experience. He could come out of it a better man. His suicide does
however highlight a shortfall in the law. His punishment imposed a financial
obligation which will now not be met. We need to hit the estates of such
absconders making such cowardly gestures and their next of kin. The support for
some beneficiaries of artificial insemination will now not benefit. There needs
be a way to recover such costs and to make restitution to the victims of sexual
crimes.
DARREN: But if
you hit the estates and next of kin of convicted criminals for financial
restitution will this not make the grief of the surviving families that much
worse?
ANNE TRAVIS: We
need to focus on the REAL victims like Tegan Millford. The damage done to
people like Mrs. Edwards can not be sheeted home to anyone else except her son.
This is what he has done to her. We must never lose sight of the fact that all men
are rapists unless educated otherwise. Rape is as natural for a man as
attacking a target is for a Doberman Pinscher.
It is in the nature of the beast. Men are without basic respect for women as
human beings. To men women are nothing more then target objects.
DARREN: Doesn’t
your idea just add insult to injury? Mr. Edwards felt there was no alternative
left and he felt hounded to death. Why not leave it at that?
ANNE TRAVIS: I
doubt men like Mr. Edwards can really feel anything very deeply. Men have no
real empathy because our society doesn’t require it and doesn’t educate men
properly. We should not allow ourselves to be emotionally manipulated by such
attention getting behaviour. No, his suicide gesture was the final and ultimate
power play by a privileged male and a most inconsiderate one at that. He
appeals to the compassion in us when he himself as a man can know no such
emotion. No, we need to send a strong message to convicted felons like Mr.
Edwards that society will not tolerate their privilege and that the courts will
pursue them even in death. THERE WILL BE RESTITUTION for victims of sexual
crimes like Tegan.
DARREN: Chris
Wheatley has criticised you for refusing to publicly debate you on this issue
and related issues.
ANNE TRAVIS: As I
have said I do not believe in lending dignity to hate groups like the Sceptic
Association who use logic as a weapon of oppression of all women. What is logical
is driven by the political zeitgeist. As far as I am concerned Chris Wheatley
is guilty of inciting hate. I will not debate Nazis.
DARREN: Thank you
Anne.
ANNE TRAVIS:
Thank you Darren.
DARREN: My next
guest is the very same Chris Wheatley referred to by Anne in the previous
interview. He is from the Sceptics Association.
Good morning Chris.
CHRIS WHEATLEY:
Good morning Darren. A real tragedy. I can not begin to imagine what it must
have been like to be William Edwards in his last days and hours. Bloody bloody
murder was as good as done and done to satisfy the self righteous delusions of
a bunch of hysterics. What happens when mental illness goes macro? We get a
kangaroo court and with that court we have to use Marcus Reid’s term a jackass
judge. Excuse my strong feelings on this but I am floored. We as a society
hounded a poor innocent man to suicide. What do feminists say? Well they are in
disagreement. Was this is a “good result” for women or a cowardly act of patriarchal
privilege? How far have we fallen down the rabbit hole?
DARREN: You’re
very angry about this aren’t you?
CHRIS WHEATLEY: I
am very angry. My regular weekly column tomorrow will be titled J’accuse and
will be about this whole case from start to finish.
DARREN: That name
“J’accuse” is a reference to the Dreyfus
affair.
CHRIS WHEATLEY:
That’s right. Emilie Zola wrote a piece of that name concerning the wrongful
conviction of Captain Dreyfus and the cover up afterwards. We have a carnival
atmosphere outside the home of Mrs. Edwards as feminists celebrate someone’s
suicide and then they have the hide to pretend sympathy for Mrs. Edwards. Faux
compassion. Then your previous guest Anne Travis paints men as having no
feelings. If ever there was projection.
DARREN: So what
can we expect to read in your column tomorrow?
CHRIS WHEATLEY: I
would advise you to read it tomorrow of course but the opinion piece will be
the story of good intentions becoming purified into poison, of too much of good
instincts being concentrated into an evil spell; a spell from which it will be hard for many to emerge. Purity is poison. If
you take any good intention or any good instinct and purify it to the point
where balance is lost then toxic evil will result. This is what happened to
William Edwards. The instinct to protect women from sexual violence is all very
good but we allowed it to turn into hysteria where all sorts of nonsense were
given a free pass because one wants to be called a misogynist. We allowed due
process to erode the rights of the defendant. We allowed laws to be created as
“excepted offences”, quote unquote, as we succumbed to panic. We allowed a man
like Bruce Morgan to sit on the judicial bench and cheered on as each judicial
outrage exceeded the last and we cheered as the Appeals Court turned a blind eye. Judge
Morgan is a giant of a man at 6 foot 5 inches but in intellect he is a pygmy.
He is not a great intellectual. Anne Travis talks about the cowardice of Mr.
Edwards but the real cowardice was seen in too many yes men and yes women too
scared to criticise and too scared to be called misogynists, rape apologist and
rape enablers. The death of Mr. Edwards by suicide is the victory of a witch
hunt. It is the victory of not only intellectual pygmies over reason but also
of moral pygmies over the courage of convictions. We have a chorus of
sycophants singing the praises of Tegan Millford, a girl who finds decapitation
funny and yet we are to believe she is the most fragile of wronged victims. A faux victim if ever there was one. Basically
my column will be the story of the evil angels of our nature in the guise of
good intentions becoming triumphant as we all collectively found a target for
mass bullying.
DARREN: You mean
Mr. Edwards.
CHRIS WHEATLEY:
Yes but I also mean the easy marks such as aspies, incels and generally
socially inept males as they fall prey to the oppressive dating etiquette of
today. The return of Jim Crow except this today Jim Crow does not discriminate
on race but only by gender.
DARREN: Given
that this is the climate today where will it lead us tomorrow?
CHRIS WHEATLEY: I
will refer to what Frederick van Spee, a 17th century German Jesuit
priest who criticised the witch trials of his time said. He said even those who
at first championed the witch trials will sooner or latter find the accusing
finger of the inquisition pointed at them because they did realise that their
time will come. These panics have a way of ensnaring all in their paths. They
take on a life of their own independent of their original midwives and often to
the cost of those midwives. A hysteria becomes a machine which must have new
fuel to burn even if it is imagined or fabricated and even if such fuel is the
hysteria’s own mid wife.
DARREN: Thank you
Chris.
CHRIS WHEATLEY:
Thank you Darren.
********
Three weeks to the day after the death of William
Edwards. Tina is reporting outside a police station.
DARREN: This
morning comes the news of the arrest of Judge Morgan last night. To tell us
more we will cross over to Tina at the scene outside the police station where
Judge Morgan has been charged. Come in Tina.
TINA: Good
morning Darren. Yes a most extraordinary development as the controversial judge
makes his own controversy today. Last night he was stopped for a random breath
test and tested positive at three times the legal alcohol limit.
DARREN: Whoa! Not
good for a judge. Of all people to be charged a judge would look the worst.
TINA: Indeed not
but it gets worse. In the passenger seat was a prostitute whose services he had
just procured.
DARREN: Not only
a judge but a campaigner against prostitution. The judge had many critics and
they must all be dancing in the streets today. Do we know who this sex worker
is.
TINA: We do not
know her real name but her working name on the streets is Belinda Cinnamon. Already
the hash tag #BelindaCinnamon is trending as is #JudgeMorgan.
DARREN: What
charges does the judge face?
TINA: He has been
charged driving over the legal alcohol limit and procuring the services of a
paid sex worker. The latter charge qualities as an excepted offense and I
imagine that many who have faced the judge on excepted offenses are now
praising the god of karma.
DARREN: Indeed I
imagine they would be. Tina, do we know what this will mean for the career of
the judge?
TINA: It’s
clearly under a cloud but even if Judge Morgan has all charges cleared and keeps
his position his credibility is surely shot, I think no matter what happens the
judge will be making an early exit from the bench.
DARREN: Thank you
Tina.
TINA: Thank you
Darren. I’ll be in touch with other details as they come through.
DARREN: Next we
will be talking to Geoff Tawnbey a senior counsel, barrister and eminent lawyer.
Good morning Geoff.
GEOFF TAWNBEY:
Good morning Darren.
DARREN: We heard
from Tina about these charges facing the judge. What is his future in the
bench?
GEOFF TAWNBEY:
This depends on the allegations and we must not lose sight that these are at
this stage just allegations and how the court deals with these. Any judge
convicted of these sorts of charges would not be able to stay on the bench.
Judges hold very responsible positions and obviously justice is not seen to be
done properly by a convicted judge.
DARREN: Judge
Morgan has been a controversial figure on the bench, revered by some especially
feminists and loathed by equally as many. There must be Champaign
corks popping all over the nation at the news this morning.
GEOFF TAWNBEY: In
some quarters there is practically dancing in the streets. One colleague who
will remain anonymous commented privately to me that a day this wonderful only
comes around once in a generation. I had issues and disagreements on legal
points with the judge myself.
DARREN: As we
speak I am getting word that memes are appearing on social media like judge brulee with cinnamon flavouring, “the surface
conceals the real contrasting character until cracked”. Another one is a recipe
for disaster made with alcohol and cinnamon with a large serving of injustice.
GEOFF TAWNBEY: (Chuckles.) There will be a lot of that. Certainly there
is no shortage of ill will wishers, a boiler pressure full of critics who will
now be unleashed. There is an old gem of wisdom to the effect that you should
to kind to others on the way up because you are sure to meet the same people on
the way down. A dam burst of vitriol will descend on to the judge.
DARREN: How would the judge be removed if it came to that?
GEOFF TAWNBEY: Initially a judge might be suspended but parliament may
well have to formally remove him from the bench.
DARREN: That would surely open a can of worms as well as revisiting
many other issues as well.
GEOFF TAWNBEY: That is correct. Political questions would be brought
forward as well as legal ones. Interesting times.
DARREN: Thank you Geoff.
GEOFF TAWNBEY: Thank you.
DARREN: Today many feminists are distancing themselves Judge Morgan.
This is an excerpt from a press conference given by noted feminist and author
Anne Travis.
ANNE TRAVIS: Although I have always strongly supported Judge Morgan in
his campaigning for women and his judicial zeal for justice for women I always
knew he was flaky. I always had the sense that he had feet of clay. He too as a
male was corrupted by male privilege, a privilege no male can view from
perspective because of his limitations as a male. We need the sort of
jurisprudence he provided but we do not need him. We need the sort of proactive
justice he spoke of in place of a make believe “justice is blind” mindset but
we do not need him. Judge Morgan is spoiled goods. The feminist movement is
stronger than the mushy weak kneed leadership he provided in the legal area.
Judge Morgan is the Lance Armstrong of jurisprudence. A cheat who has been
found out. None of this is to undermine the feminist movement or to criticise
feminism in general. Women are still massively disadvantaged. Women are
everyday being raped, pillaged and harassed to the extent that many women do
not even know how deprived of justice they are. They have so internalised the
values of patriarchal violence against themselves. Because of this a majority
of women still do not call themselves feminists. The Judge Morgan issue is not
the end of the feminist project but only serves to remind us all how far we
still have to travel. Any critic who tries to paint the failings of the judge
as a failure of feminism is simply indulging in male privilege. Male privilege
looks after its own. Feminism learns from its mistakes and moves on. Male
privilege is inflexible, toxic, illogical and tired but feminism is fresh,
flexible, logical and vital.
DARREN: That was Anne Travis at a press conference distancing herself
and feminism generally from the foibles of Judge Morgan. This morning has seen
the words alcohol, cinnamon and judge all used in a single sentence.
********
The maverick Member of Parliament Marcus Reid is
giving a press conference.
MARCUS REID: I
wish to speak about the events surrounding Judge Morgan. Several weeks ago I
spoke harshly about the judge in the media. I was speaking from my heart if
unwisely given the rules of evidence and sub judice. I am today ashamed about Judge Morgan. His hypocrisy, his poor
example of “do as I say, not as I do” and especially as a judge charged with
the responsibility of upholding the law and breaking that law while preaching
exactly the opposite. I must however confess to my own shame of allowing myself
to be held to views which were not mine and succumbing to pressure under
duress. I had a gun held to my head. When Mr. Edwards took his life I felt as
small as an ant. I felt like a coward because I had been a coward. That night
when I defected from my own values I died inside. I am sorry for that. I let
down many who felt I was speaking for them and I let myself down. Today Judge
Morgan is down for the count and the real Marcus Reid must now resurrect. It is
really a day for rejoicing. I feel safe now in calling the deal I made with the
judge null and void. Today many who have been silenced by the judge and by
feminism in general can quench their thirst for justice. The many who are
parched dry by this drought in justice can now drink. I say to the William
Edwards of the world and all those who felt the world had deserted them in
family court, in the corridors of power, in tertiary education institutions and
work place as they were told to “suck it up”, quote unquote, I say to all such
men who have long been thirsty for justice to take this cup of sweet nectar and
drink of it. You are parched. Drink of this cup of karma fully and enjoy the
sweet taste. This is a rare day of celebration. Today you are walking more
lightly and you have a bounce in your step. You are ready to dance. To dance on
the grave of Judge Morgan. Drink of this cup. Your patient wait for justice is
rewarded. Karma has delivered. Drink! This is an oasis at the end of your long
desert trek. This bud is for you. (Lifting
his cup of water to his mouth.) Drink of its nectar. Never has Schadenfreude tasted so sweet.
The end.
