Thread by @jeremy_gans

"I did it because the woman involved at the centre of this asked me to... She's been left out of this conversation. Today is the first opportunity for her to put her point of view across. That often happens in. these conversations.": abc.net.au/radionational/….

"She knows that I was coming here today. She is a dear friend, husband is a friend, she knew I was coming & she didn't want me to talk about it. She's been re-traumatised through this debate and this discussion, as you would be. Having strangers talk about your life & marriage."

"Judge you without knowing the facts. Without understanding the circumstances. She pleaded with me - she didn't want me to come up here today. But I'm a politician and I know that I have to be responsible for the things that I say and the things that I do, but I promised her..."

"She's written something. I did promise that I would convey that because her voice has been left out of this so far. She said: 'what my husband did is very wrong. And he acknowledged that by pleading guilty in court. Sarah is a long-standing friend of both of us and she has...

...done nothing wrong by stating her opinion of who she believes my husband to be. Her statement does not condone his behaviour in any way. I understand that there is interest in this case and that domestic violence is an issue that needs to be discussed and interrogated.

But I need privacy to deal with my personal circumstances in my own way with the interests of my children and myself foremost. I ask that our family circumstances are not discussed further.' It was a hard conversation for me to say to her, I know that's what you want, but this.."

I cannot fathom how @PatsKarvelas and @frankelly08 didn't see that as the end of the discussion. Whatever they think of SHY, they couldn't possibly think it's right to reject a DV victim's plea to stop discussing her case and retraumatising her, could they? Yes, they could.

SHY pointed out that the victim 'also wrote a character reference... She asked me to help amplify her voice.' Again, that's the end of it right? No: 'women often - I don't know the statistics - come and defend men who have been perpetrators of violence against them, right?'

I don't know if it was PK or FK who said that, but what could it mean except that she thinks that a crime victim's own carefully and clearly stated views that she asked SHY to read to them should be publicly dismissed as some sort of statistical incident of domestic violence?

SHY explains to PK & FK that guilt and sentencing are different things. "What my friend was confronting was was her husband losing his job, everyone in this small community that they live in knowing that, despite that this had happened, she had decided to stay with him, to...

...reconcile with him, to deal with that. She has the right to make that decision.'

Do FK/PK agree with the victim? Of course not. "Shouldn't this have an impact on his reputation?" That gets them applause!

SHY: "The person in the centre of this is the woman, who has left out of this decision and I want to make sure her view, her desire, if she wants to keep her family together, if she wants to do everything she can to move on for her life, that needs to be respected."

K: 'OK, but anyone who has covered domestic violence, is a survivor of domestic violence and I - I know this is a triggering conversation for many people - but many of us are. So anyone who is knows that this is a really difficult and layered issue and when you said in your...

...reference that you know he won't reoffend'. SHY: 'I didn't say that. FK: 'You said the man has told me he has no intention of reoffending and given what I know of his character I'm confident that no reoffending will occur.' PK: 'Fran's always got the facts, you did, that's...

...the same thing.'

And, no, it's NOT the same thing. What SHY wrote is what happens in every single courtroom - and relationship and friendship and workplace and family - in the world, every day: using what you know of someone's character to make the best prediction you can.

But, nope, none of that difficulty and layering that people who 'cover' or are victims of DV know about. PK: "There's a really specific question on this: how do you know? How do you know? Because this is the thing about DV. You don't know." [Applause,].

PK then says that "people behave differently in the workplace and at home". It's hard to read this as anything other than PK saying that SHY may have been duped by an abuser. But SHY knows the VICTIM too. Is PK saying (effectively to the victim) that the victim is being duped?

SHY: 'Look, I don't know for sure, what i know is based on his character and that is what I was asked to reflect on and that is what I wrote to the judge about. That what I know about him as a person, knowing that he admitted what he did, that he pleaded guilty, that he standed..

...up and took responsibility for it, that the wife, the woman, my friend, believed and wants to believe and wants to work with him to reconcile, that's what I know. It's based on his character, what I know of his character, no-one can say. But I tell you what.

When I was asked by this woman at the centre of this to believe her to stand with her to give her a voice in this I did. I wished I hadn't been asked."

And the response? K: "Why didn't you say no though?"

So, this question implies that what SHY should have done is said to her friend, a victim of crime, something like:
- sorry, I don't support you
- sorry, I don't believe you
- sorry, my career is more important than you
- sorry, the campaign against DV is more important than you.

SHY: "Because, Patricia, I have spent my life standing up for the right of women to be heard. Not turning my back on them. And when a woman came to me, a friend of mine, who trusts me, I couldn't turn my back on her."

K: "But Sarah, in doing that, given who you are, you're...

...a feminist, you're an outspoken woman on this issue of domestic violence, you are a senator in the Australian parliament, in standing by your friends, were you not standing by the 10s of 1000s of women and children who are subjected to violence in their own homes?"

She said that. Even though the 'friend' (singular) that SHY was JUST talking about is a victim of domestic violence in her own home. PK somehow can't even think of SHY's friend as 'one of the 10s of 1000s', because the friend isn't acting the way PK thinks victims should.

Oh and, fuck me, THAT hideousness got applause too.

SHY: "You know, I am rock solid on condemning violence against women. It was the wrong thing to do. I am also rock solid on empowering women to make their choices and to have their voice heard."

And what SHY says there is absolutely the crux of it. I don't think there's ANY conflict between those two positions. I don't think SHY does, but if she does, she's clearly chosen empowering women over condemning violence. And FK/PK would both put condemning violence first.

SHY: "I didn't do this because he wanted me to. I didn't do this because he asked me to do this. I did this because she wanted me to do this."

K interrupts: "You used the word naive before..."

K argues that anything that is written down becomes public (because that's how public interest journalism works - it's not the journos who publish, it's SHY):

K: "Do you regret that as a feminist figure that you have sent a message, one that you contest, but I I tell you...

...I have seen it from the left to the right, that you've sent a message to women, that some violence perhaps is permissive?'

SHY: "I know that, because this has been circulated in the public realm, and it's been reported the way it has, what has been written for one...

...particular audience has now been seen as my statement on violence, I totally understand. And I know why people are disappointed. I never intended that to be the case. I intended to support the woman at the centre of this. And that is what I did.

Do they regret asking me? [Light applause]. No, they're not having a pretty good time right now."

PK: "Do you regret writing it?"

SHY: "I wish I hadn't been asked. But if I'm absolutely honest with you Patricia, I don't think that if a woman came to me, who I know, who I...

...trust, who trusts me, and asks me to help give her a voice because she's been silenced and left out of this, would I turn my back on her, no I would not. I think women are so often left out of this conversation. Why is it about what he did? How this impacts on him?

What about what it means for her?"

PK: "Because it's a crime, Sarah."

I don't know how SHY doesn't say: "AND SHE"S A FUCKING VICTIM OF CRIME, PATRICIA."

SHY: "Yes it is a crime, and he admitted it, and he pled guilty, and so he bloody well should have...

...But, in these conversations, so often the victim, the woman at the centre of it, you don't think her life has been turned upside down by this? Of course, it has. And everything time she has to think about whether he wanted to leave - I would have helped her leave.

And maybe one day she will. And I will help her leave."

Imagine. Just imagine the victim listening to this. PK certainly can't or won't:

PK: "Just finally do you have a message for all the OTHER women out there who've read what you said and feel that you have....

...not honoured their position, and the position's they've been fighting for, and the position that' - wait for it - 'the police have been fighting for, and the situations they're in. Do you understand that?'

I mean, the words, let alone the tone, are just unbelievable.

SHY: "Yes I do and what I have done when I agreed after being asked to do this - and I thought long and hard about this - about my values in this, some people want to think, oh well, Sarah stood up for women's rights and done this but her mate came along and asked for a favour...

...so all that went out the window. And that is not what happened." [A voice then seemingly heckles.]

SHY: "I did this because she asked me, she was acting in the best interests of her family."

PK interrupts, but SHY says 'I just want to finish this question from Fran."

SHY: "I think this is really important. For any woman out there that may be in this situation, and has been in this situation, we all need to work together to make sure that you have actual choices, for what it is that you need to do to protect yourself, to make a choice...

...that's right for you, for your family."

And (believe it or. not) PK says: "But that's exactly why the police have the power now."

And THAT's the crux of it. PK thinks police, not victims, should be empowered when it comes to DV.

PK: "...to launch domestic violence orders to make sure the woman has the right."

And yes, that is mostly the point of DV orders. But PK somehow misses that that isn't this case, which isn't about orders, but is a prosecution and, specifically, a punishment.

SHY then rightly points out that the police are essential to questions of guilt or innocence, but this case is about sentencing, not guilt. Which is NOT an area where the police have - or at least ought to have - any agency or power whatsoever.

SHY: "We have a justice system, and women need to have a voice in that system too. Once the police are called, saying that a woman doesn't have a right anymore, well, for far too long we've silenced women and we have to make sure we give them every opportunity every support to...

...make the decision that's right for them. If she wanted to leave - and I know that many people don't have the ability to do that and it's not safe and more dangerous - and a lot of women just want the behaviour to stop. And they want to be supported in being able to make...

...that decision to keep their family together. And not be judged because they didn't leave."

That's the cue for PK to say: "Of course, we shouldn't judge and we're not". But of course she doesn't and starts to wrap up the segment.

SHY: "And I just want to say, I know this isn't easy, I really know this isn't easy, these issues are so complex, individual cases are different, a woman trusted me to help her, that's what I did, I just, the suggestion, and I hate to think that anyone out there would...

...a woman wanting to keep her family together and me supporting that, somehow undermines the ability of others and the right of other women to make other choices, absolutely not."

K: "I suppose the difficulty is that the message is: if violence happens, the relationship can...

...still. be rehabilitated and sometimes people find that troubling because violence often ends in more violence."

I mean, how can PK be clearer?: relationships can't be rehabilitated, SHY's friend should leave, chances are he'll hurt her again.

SHY: "That's where the shame comes in doesn't it? Because women get judged for their choices."

FK: "But the man needs to be judged for his actions, Sarah. Your reference was for the man, he was the perpetrator."

SHY: "The man was charged, the man pled guilty, he was given a sentence by the judge. And that's up to him. There are two things I've always said in these circumstances: believe the woman and listen to her, give her a voice, and secondly, if you are a man who has done the...

...wrong thing, own it, confront it and say sorry and apologise, deal with your actions. If he had not done that there's no way in hell I would've considered being part of this process. "

PK: "Well, Sarah, people can make their own determinations about the way you handled it."

And that's a wrap. I'm no fan of SHY, but I think she was spot on in everything she said here. I'm amazed that she kept it together in the face of such repeatedly awful statements by two journalists in full knowledge of their impact on a particular victim of violence.