Post

Consortium News

Feb 20, 2024 • 50 tweets • 7 min read • Read on X

Consortium News hopes to be live tweeting from the #Assange court room on this thread, but we have NOT received our video links as yet - neither @unjoe nor @CathyVoganSPK (who had intended to connect via remote access).

If the links do not arrive they will both be in the court room and will endeavour to report from there.

@unjoe @CathyVoganSPK Still no remote access links for @Consortiumnews but the court has said they will try to get ours to us ASAP. #Assange Hearing begins in 20 minutes.

@unjoe @CathyVoganSPK We have received the remote access link and are now connected to the #Assange courtroom.

@unjoe @CathyVoganSPK We can now hear audio from the #Assange courtroom.

@unjoe @CathyVoganSPK All rise!

@unjoe @CathyVoganSPK Edward Fitzgerald speaking. Judge clarifies. #Assange is ill and will neither attend in person nor via video link.

@unjoe @CathyVoganSPK Edward Fitzgerald very difficult to hear. The microphone has been placed next to a typewriter which is banging away.

@unjoe @CathyVoganSPK EF for defence: laying out points of renewal appeal.
1. No extradition for political offences; prosecution is politically motivated.
2. Breach of Article 7 ECHR - unforeseeable crime
3. Article 10 ECHR - freedom of speech
4. Disproportionate penalty
5. Unfair trial for foreigner

@unjoe @CathyVoganSPK EF #Assange not charged for Vault 7 but could be punished for it. CIA already engaged in unlawful conduct - spying - and plotted to extra-judicially kidnap or kill him.

@unjoe @CathyVoganSPK Secretary of State should not extradite because US assurances leave room for @Assange being sentenced to death penalty.

@unjoe @CathyVoganSPK Addressing US-UK Treaty Section 2.1 which bars extradition for political offences. It would be in breach of the Treaty. Exceptions do not include Espionage.

@unjoe @CathyVoganSPK Temporary pause. Journalists in second court room can not hear the proceedings.

@unjoe @CathyVoganSPK #Assange court back in session.

EF says extradition would breach Article 4 of the US-UK Treaty. Espionage is universally defined as a political offence, which is barred by the Treaty. Court has jurisdiction to refuse such arbitrary abuse of process.

@unjoe @CathyVoganSPK EF. DJ & Justice Swift said it was not an abuse of process to request extradition for political offence. We submit that it would violate Article 4 of the treaty. You can't rely on the treaty and ignore it.

Political offence also incorporated in S81A of the 2003 Extradition Act

@unjoe @CathyVoganSPK EF: In S.81 of the Extradition Act, political opinions are grouped with race, gender, nationality. Extradition barred for all such forms of discrimination.

S.87 retains Article 5 of the ECHR, ruling out arbitrary extradition.

@unjoe @CathyVoganSPK EF: Article 5 ECHR protects against abuse of process.
UK court has jurisdiction to investigate if prosecution trying to prejudice the court against a defendant.

Article 4 ECH empowers domestic courts to act.

@unjoe @CathyVoganSPK EF: The UK has accepted treaty as governing the rules for extradition. All treaties UK has with other countries exclude extradition for political offences.

The applicant #Assange is not relying on the treaty as a sword but a shield.

@unjoe @CathyVoganSPK EH: Is this an intrinsically just decision? Political offence has been successfully adjudicated on for 130 years, and in sophisticated case law within the Act S.81.

No extradition for political offence is age-old in the UK. It's one of the most universally accepted features.

@unjoe @CathyVoganSPK EF: Espionage & censorship are defined as political offences. For #Assange there was only a Conspiracy to commit Computer Intrusion charge but this was later related to defense information, so it too now is a political offense.

@unjoe @CathyVoganSPK EF: We cited the Australian cases where treason & espionage are defined as pure political offenses. In other cases, sedition also included within this category.

@unjoe @CathyVoganSPK EF: Certain acts of violence and terrorism are excluded as political offence, but never espionage. @WikiLeaks was described as an intelligence of the people. Their activities could not be described as other than political.

@unjoe @CathyVoganSPK EF: #Assange's position was described as spokesman to an international political movement. He was not at the service of a nation state, but the wider interests of humanity.

@unjoe @CathyVoganSPK EF: Is there any jurisdiction for this court to bar extradition? The answer is yes.

DJ said the police offence exception was removed from the 2003 Extradition Act - but you can't just look at a statute & claim the UK was ignoring its centuries-old treaty. Article 5 ECHR applies.

@unjoe @CathyVoganSPK EF: DJ said she was relying on the case of Norris. That was totally different case. The US was defined as a country that need not present a prima facie case. Domestic rights were governed by act and not treaty.

We cite Article 4 and 5 of the ECHR.

@unjoe @CathyVoganSPK EF: There is no dis-application of the US-UK's protective 1972 extradition treaty in the 2003 Act.

The treaty is no conflict between the Treaty and the act, as shown in the Heathrow airport case.

@unjoe @CathyVoganSPK EF: The European court says you can't just rely on domestic law when it comes to extradition. It must be in harmony with international law. Treaties get incorporated into domestic law. UK court would violate its own treaty to satisfy extradition request for #Assange.

@unjoe @CathyVoganSPK EF: We are saying Article 5 ECHR is part of UK domestic law via the Human Rights Act.

@unjoe @CathyVoganSPK EF: DJ deals with abuse of process, citing Ademi, but Lord Bingham relied on a wider context of protection. Breach of Art. 31 would constitute an abuse, which relies on reasonable expectation of prosecution.

We submit that this domestic case law can't apply here to extradition.

@unjoe @CathyVoganSPK EF: We say it is an abuse of process to ignore our international treaty or obligations. A breach of a Convention can require a stay on extradition.

EF: We say #Assange's extradition is barred by international treaty (political offences) and by S.81 of the UK Extradition Act (political opinions).

Judge: Where can we find this new point about S.81 of the Act?
EF: Up front in this renewal appeal application.

NOTE: It was also in the original appeal Justice Swift rejected

@unjoe @CathyVoganSPK Mark Summers? speaking now for the defense. He is hard to hear over the typewriter. He is speaking about state criminality.

@unjoe @CathyVoganSPK Summers for the defence is talking about extra-judicial plots to kidnap or kill #Assange and something about selective prosecution but he is almost inaudible over the courtroom typewriter. Why don't they put the microphone closer??

@unjoe @CathyVoganSPK Many journalists complaining that they can't hear this barrister for the defence. It sounds like the microphone has been placed inside a typewriter. From what we can hear, he is talking about the gravity of the U.S. crimes @WikiLeaks revealed.

Judge is asking for references

@unjoe @CathyVoganSPK We are seeking remedy for the inaudibility of this barrister

@unjoe @CathyVoganSPK Summers says prosecution aimed at silencing #Assange's political opinions and reporting on state criminality.

@unjoe @CathyVoganSPK MS for Defence: There are other examples of state law-fare aimed at silencing reports of criminality and corruption.

MS: Talking about state retaliation for reporting on their offences. Emil Zola's 'J'accuse' describes treatment of Dreyfus. Mentioned in Australian courts. He was treated as a refugee. Neither District judge nor prosecution considered this, but there was compelling evidence of US's motivation.

@unjoe @CathyVoganSPK MS: Citing DJ's ruling which said Defense argues that Mr Assange's reporting puts him in the cross-hairs of the US. Pure speculation.

There is evidence in @WikiLeaks disclosures of state level judicial interference in a number of countries.

@unjoe @CathyVoganSPK MS: Seeking impunity for state crime is a violation of international law. US sought global impunity.

@unjoe @CathyVoganSPK MS: US threatened the ICC and said it would use criminal prosecution against anyone who cooperated with ICC.

#Assange was not prosecution for 6 years. DJ did not ask why. DJ did not considered sudden action in late 2016, when ICC announced it would investigate US crimes.

@unjoe @CathyVoganSPK MS: Both @WikiLeaks documents and #Assange's presence were essential at the ICC in their proceedings against the US.

DJ acknowledged CIA had been hostile to Assange but dismissed because they did not represent the state.

MS: In fairness to the DJ, she had no idea, nor did the defense, that the phrase "hostile non-state intelligence agency" had legal significance. She was looking for administration-level hostility, not understand the evidence she had received.

It enabled CIA to bypass Congress but President Trump himself had requested sketches for how to kill or rendition #Assange.

@unjoe @CathyVoganSPK MS: DJ didn't see the red flags everywhere. She heard evidence from UC Global staff but now there is evidence in the @Yahoo News report that both CIA & the administration plotted to kidnap or kill him.

Prosecution of #Assange was simply a legal framework to achieve the same end.

@unjoe @CathyVoganSPK MS: DJ knew that prosecution of #Assange had all the hallmarks of persecution. It was selective. She knew the charges were ramped up 17 times - even thought the facts remained identical to the original charge. And she knew that extradition on the 17 new counts was prohibited.

@unjoe @CathyVoganSPK MS: This court is obliged to intervene when a DJ ignores relevant facts or errs in judgement. A bad faith extradition request must be refused.

@unjoe @CathyVoganSPK MS: I move to the next ground: Article 7 (foreseeability of criminal sanction). Not the main point. Article 10 (freedom of speech) is.

Prosecution for unforeseeable crime is arbitrary. Journalists outside of government had never been prosecuted for espionage before.

@unjoe @CathyVoganSPK MS: It was DJ's responsibility to see that Article 7 was not breached, and to ensure it was in line with the US's 5th Amendment. It is not.

NatSec leaks to press is normalised in Washington, as the publishing of those leaks. Leakers have been prosecuted but never journalists.

MS: When Espionage Act was first enacted, a version of it that applied to the press, was rejected. The First Amendment says the freedom of the press must not be abridged.

Judge: Have there been cases for prosecution for disclosure of large numbers of human sources.

MS: Yes: Only the defendants passport was confiscated.

@unjoe @CathyVoganSPK Court is in recess for lunch.

@unjoe @CathyVoganSPK @threadreaderapp unroll

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh

More from @Consortiumnews

Consortium News

@Consortiumnews

Feb 11

Last day of witness testimony for Lattouf v. ABC will begin in about 30 minutes. Live updates will be on this thread and the proceedings will be live-streamed from the Federal Court of Australia on this link:

Yesterday ended with the former ABC Chair Ita Buttrose claiming she had nothing to do with @antoinette_news' sacking, despite evidence of a number of emails she sent to subordinates that appeared to apply pressure for this outcome.

She stated in court: "I'm not happy and I wasn't happy. I didn't wish her to be removed. I didn't put pressure on anybody. It's a fantasy of your own imagination. I have nothing to do with her dismissal".

Court in session.

Judge: A media organisation has published information that was subject to a suppression order. I ask that this organisation consider their position & avoid further action.

Announcement of document that has arrived.
Next witness with be Elizabeth Green (direct manager of Lattouf). There is an objection to a part of her affidavit, starting with "this is because...". Judge reads & Lattouf lawyer objects on relevance. What is revenant is what she said or intended to say in a meeting.

Judge: Isn't that favourable for you

LL: Potentially but what is relevant is what preceded her characterisation of what she said.

Judge: I will provisionally let that evidence be led & we can deal with the matter in closing submissions.

Green takes the stand. Confirms her name & position as producer of Sydney 'Drive' show.

LL refers Green to her affidavit.

EG: It's details of a Teams meeting + screenshot I took.

Barrister Philip Boncardo for Lattouf: Did you see complaints about AL?

EG: Yes

PB: Were you told they were from lobby groups?
EG: No, not that I recall.

PB: Re conversations with Ahern. he asked you to look at AL's post. Did you know they about Israel-Palestine?

EG: Yes

PB asks about specifics of what EG said to Lattouf about social media posting & about communication to Ms McBean, legal council.

EG: I said she should be mindful, avoid posting anything about Israel-Palestine.

PB: AL had asked if she had done anything wrong
EG: I told her she was doing a good job, but keep a low profile on social media.

PB: Did you tell Lattouf she should not post anything that might appear unbalanced or not impartial.

EG: Yes

PB: Nothing about Israel-Palestine?

EG: yes I believe so

PB: You said it was OK to post anything factual and from a verified organisation?

EG: Yes

PB: Nothing controversial?

EG: Yes

PB: You got an email from AL outlining what was OK to post & you forwarded this to Ahern. And you both OKd this?

EG: Yes

PB: You gave Lattouf good feedback on her show?

EG: Yes

PB: You were copied in on an email sent by Ahern detailing why AL was on the show.

EG: Yes

PB: When you learned of an intention to dismiss AL you raised an objection that there was nothing wrong with her post?

EG: yes

PB: You were at the dismissal meeting with Ahern & Lattouf where it was explained she had breached the social media policy. Did AL say she had discussed what was OK with you?

EG: Yes

PB: Al was crying & you spent time with here. You said you were sorry & had tried to stop this, but it was coming from higher up?

EG: yes

PB: AL asked if it was about the @hrw post & you said it was about it not being balanced.

EG: Yes

PB: And she said: "How can you balance starvation (as a 'weapon of war')?

EG: I don't recall that.

PB: You said you would love AL to work at the ABC again.

EG: Yes

PB: You made notes, saying you had heard the decision came from Mr Anderson. Heard from whom?

EG: Mr Ahern

PB: You note a conference call with Ben Latimer

EG: Yes.

Read 9 tweets

Consortium News

@Consortiumnews

Feb 10

Lattouf v. ABC will resume in the Federal Court of Australia in about 20 minutes time & we'll hear from five witnesses over the two days. Updates are on this thread & the proceedings can be viewed on this link.

@antoinette_news Day Six of Lattouf v. ABC in session. Judge makes announcement about violations of the confidentiality of complainants' names & addresses - and the uploading of unredacted material to the publicly available online files. ABC lawyer apologises for the human error.

@antoinette_news Today we will hear from Ahern, Buttrose & Green. Statement from ABC: does not deny the existence of the Lebanese race or ethnic extraction & that Ms Lattouf is Lebanese. Does deny this has anything to do with her dismissal.

Read 10 tweets

Consortium News

@Consortiumnews

Feb 6

Our DAY FIVE reporting on the Lattouf v. ABC case will be on this thread and starting at 9.30am AEDT, the proceedings can be viewed via this link ⬇️

We arrived at a point yesterday where David Anderson, the Managing Director of the ABC (Australia's national broadcaster) testified that @antoinette_news' mention of "Illegally occupied territories" of #Gaza could be interpreted as anti-semitic hate speech.

The Australian journalists' union @withMEAA has since issued a statement about outside interference that may have influenced such views within the ABC.

Court in session. Calling Christopher Nicolas Oliver-Taylor (O-T), Chief Content Officer (COT) for ABC.

Changes since affidavit - resigned from ABC.

Screenshot shown from Teams meeting

Oshie Fagir: You took a religious oath

O-T: Yes, I'm Catholic
OF: Do you know what a managed exit is?
O-T: No
OF: Do you use Signal & did you communicate about Ms Lattouf over Signal
O-T: Yes & yes, with Mr Latimer

OF reads O-T's job description - ensures compliance for editorial policies (EdPols) - - formerly over 1K people

OF - Do you understand EdPols govern on air content, and then there are Guidelines for personal use of social media & ABC distinguishes the two?

O-T Yes, but it depends on the circumstances?

OF- So personal social media activity is not ABC content & not subject to EdPols. Agree?

O-T Yes, but impartiality can come into play

OF: You were also bound by EdPols?

O-T: Yes

OF draws O-T's attention to the subject of misconduct = where employee disobeys a reasonable and lawful direction.

OF You understand the difference between direction, request and suggestion?

O-T: Yes

OF: The way Ms Lattouf (AL) was dealt with was highly abnormal. Agree?

O-T: No

OF: Ms Green was AL's line manager. Wasn't it unusual for you & ABC's MD to be involved in scrutinising the conduct of a 5-day casual employee? You disagreed.

O-T: Nods

OF: Social media misconduct should have nothing to do with EdPols or the COT, but be managed by line manager.

O-T: Not unless the MD refers it to COT. It was managed by line manager but others involved to.

OF: When did you consult with people in Culture?
O-T: I did not

OF: You understood that Lattouf was not a high profile personality?
O-T: Yes

OF: You were aware of her race & national extraction?
O-T: No

OF: You see this email you wrote, where you say she is a Lebanese Christian?

O-T: I copy/pasted this content from Mr Ahern...

OF: Of course you knew. Were you confused by this? You understand that there is a race called Lebanese Christian?

ABC lawyer: Objection

Judge asks O-T to leave the room

OF reminds judge that Fair Work Act permits use of race as a national or ethnic category

OF to O-T: You understand Lattouf was Lebanese?
O-T: I wasn't really aware of all the content of my email send to MD Anderson.

OF: You just copy/paste content to email and send?
O-T: In some cases. The criteria. for Lattouf's selection were put together by someone else.

OF: You understood Lattouf's position on the Israel-Gaza war before she was hired?

O-T: More as the week continued. I don't know if I understood her position but I knew there were published comments relating to question of partiality as a host of a live radio show.

OF: You understood when you caused her to be removed from the air that Lattouf held a view that media orgs should report ethically on Israel-Palestine?

O-T: I didn't know she held that view

OF refers to O-T sent to Ahern & Latimer, questioning her suitability for the job because of her position on Israel-Palestine & because she signed a petition.

OF: You knew her political stance when you fired her, that she was critical of the State of Israel?

O-T: No

OF: You knew she had signed a petition calling for ethical reporting on the war?

O-T: It wasn't about that, She wasn't supposed to post anything during her period of employment

OF: He dismissal was precipitated by a social media post? When did you become aware of that?
O-T: Yes. during a Teams meeting,. It was a slide shared by Mr Latimer

OF: You gave evidence at the Fair Work Commission that you had never seen that post. O-T says his memory is not clear.

OF moves on to the week of Lattouf's dismissal. O-T says he was looking at ways she could be kept on air.

OF refers to correspondence about Lattouf. There is no indication here that you saw her posts relating to diversity of voices and Israel's use of starvation as a weapon of war. Correct?

O-T: I can't recall. I believe I was told by Mr Latimer

OF reads from O-T affidavit, questions the use of language defining partiality. Asks if those are lawyer's words or his.

O-T: I don't know how to answer that
OF : You understand there is an obligation for ABC employees to be impartial. On what issues?
O-T: That's a broad question but if you're a live radio host you should be impartial, there are some topics where it becomes difficult to hold personal view.

OF: The obligation applies at all times or only at work
O-T: It depends on the circumstances

OF: And if you are radio host, it applies to all subject matter? Did you understand that when Lattouf was employed by ABC she should be impartial on all subject matter at all times?

O-T: No? (O-T speaking very quietly)

OF: Lattouf was hosting the 'Mornings' show and it was a (politically) light show. That her work was not related to the Israel-Gaza war?

O-T: Yes, but there were news breaks & that was the hottest news story at the time.

OF: You wrote "her work is not related to the Israel-Gaza war. You knew the content of 'Mornings' was significantly watered down coming up to Christmas.

OF: You knew Lattouf did not present the news. That was a completely different person & different department. Correct?

O-T: Yes

OF: Was Lattouf sacked for breaching a direction?
O-T: Yes, and was not impartial - and this could have affected perception of her impartiality on air.

OF: Who gave the direction not to pst on social media

O-T: I believe it was Mr Ahern
OF: Because she was known to have certain opinions about the Israel-Gaza War?

O-T: I was told that
OF: What was her view?
O-T: I'm not sure
OF: You took a decision without knowing anything about her views?
O-T: I'm not an expert on the issues. I was told there was a problem related to impartiality.
OF: You knew complaints were made by a pro-Israel lobby?
O-T: I knew there had been a number of complaints. I don't believe I knew it was a lobby. It was by people who held a different view to Ms Lattouf. That was clear.

OF: You understood that the complaints were about her position on the Israel-Gaza war.

O-T: Yes
OF: You have been instructed not to acknowledge Ms Lattouf's position & just use the catch-phrase "impartiality", right?

O-T: I don't agree with that statement.

OF On Dec 18, did you know who Lattouf was?
O-T: I don't think so
OF: Did Anderson know her?
O-T: I don't know sir
OF: You knew complaints were about her position on the war?
O-T: Yes, Mr Anderson told me
OF: And you told Mr Ahern to seek advice Latimer & Saska?
O-T: Yes they were the experts on subject matter

OF: On what basis has the ABC authority to forbid Lattouf from expressing her views?

O-T: Our concern about impartiality
OF You note Latimer's advice that the ABC could not expect a casual presenter's view to be consistent with ABC policy at all times? You agree with that?

O-T: Yes
OF: And you note Melkman's comments about her Crikey article, that it was clearly journalistic work?

OF: Yes
O-T: You agreed with Melkman's view (as acting editorial director)?
O-T: Yes

OF You then get an email from Ahern & see mention of Lattouf's views on the Israel-Gaza war. Did you read it?

O-T: Briefly
OF: You had a lot of emails about this. Was it a priority issue?
O-T: Yes but it wasn't about something I knew much about.

OF: Your affidavit speaks of what was in your mind the week of the dismissal.
O-T: There were lots of things going on. I was running 9 radio stations & 4 RV channels
OF: But there's a lot about this matter in you affidavit.
O-T: I remember different things at different times.

OF: You have no reason to doubt what was in Ahern's email? Your view when you wrote to the MD was that Lattouf had expressed views that would be problematic?

O-T: During her period of employment
OF You understood there would be no coverage of Israel-Gaza that week?

O-T: Yes
OF: Did you think AL's signing a petition was relevant?
O-T: No but others were concerned
OF: You recall a series of texts the MD sent you that evening of Dec 18?
O-T: Yes

OF, referring to the one saying MD thought "we have an Antoinette problem. Her socials are full of anti-semitic hatred" and doubting ABC could have someone like that on air. Did you think he was right?

O-T: I did know much about the issue. I was concerned that she was on live radio.

OF: You had no idea what she was posting?

O-T: I agreed with Anderson that we had a problem because she was live.

OF: You were sent a screenshot about Crikey reporting by Lattouf & Cameron Wilson. What's problematic about her contributing to a Crikey article?

O-T: My concern was that she was live.
OF: ABC journalists publish articles every day where they express their opinions. Should this disqualify them from working at the ABC.

O-T: I'm not a journalist. When an MD uses words like "ant-semitic hatred" I become concerned.

OF: Didn't you say you didn't know anything about Lattouf's views, but were aware on the evening of Dec 18 that she was critical of the State of Israel?

O-T: MD told me that and supplied a screenshot.

Judge asks O-T to leave court. Discussion about line of questioning. OF says O-T was a decision-maker. The allegation was that Lattouf was sacked because of her political views. He wants to educe evidence that O-T was ate of those views. Judge suggests he take question in two steps. O-T returns.

Read 11 tweets

Consortium News

@Consortiumnews

Feb 5

Our DAY FOUR reporting on the Lattouf v. ABC case will be on this thread and starting at 10.45am AEDT, the proceedings can be viewed via this link ⬇️

@antoinette_news #LattoufvABC Day 4 hearing will begin in 15 minutes.

Lattouf lawyer Oshie Fagir (OF) continues questioning ABC managing director Mr Anderson (A).

Establishes that being fired by Australia's national broadcaster is a serious matter. Reminds A that he said all staff were well aware of ABC policies and guidelines.

OF: I asked if there were other rules not communicated to staff & only in the minds of management.

A: No, I cited sections of the EdPols regarding objectivity, which are in part informed by guidelines.

OF: What is objective journalism? Does that require qualification?

A: Reads extract and claims this to be clear.

OF Your view is that if a person's conduct in their private communications is perceived not to be impartial then that undermines the ABC's integrity?

A: That is the starting point for an investigation.

OF: You recall we spoke about a number of other ABC presenters who had made statements that were clearly not impartial, yet they were not sanctioned.

A: Because they were based on fact.

OF: So it didn't matter that millions of Australian would disagree with the statement "Australia is a racist country and always has been", by Laura Tingle?

A: No

OF: The critical point is whether the statement is true?

A: Yes

OF: Would you agree that the process you describe is arbitrary?

A: No, an investigation ensues & someone senior decides whether there should be a sanction or removal.

OF: Who decides whether a statement is true?

A: A delegate decides whether the statement is accurate.

Judge: Is this a typical process or the process.

A: Sometimes no decision needs to be made since there is no case to answer.

OF: You understand Ms Lattouf was fired because she posted something on social media. Was this process followed?

A: No

OF: You are the ABC's MD & have a deep understanding of its processes for dealing with misconduct. I want to understand your views on these processes.

ABC lawyer objects on relevance. A asked to leave the court.

OF: I want to understand why A took no steps to ensure an investigation took place, as required in the process he describes.

Judge: Are you suggesting A's understanding of the enterprise agreement is relevant?

OF: Yes, and according to ABC processes, I want to determine why he did not assure compliance.

Judge: I deem the line of questioning relevant.

ABC: Word of caution about the actual nature of the pleading.

OF to A: Should a process have been followed that wasn't.

A: I think an assessment was warranted. My understanding is that allegations were not put to Ms Lattouf.

OF: Nor was a support person or outside assessor appointed?

A: No, Ms Lattouf was not approached.

OF: In the case of Laura Tingle she was counseled but not in relation to her comments about racism in Australia?

A: Correct

OF: Complaints have been made about ABC presenter Paul Barry?

A: Yes

OF: He was never taken off air?

A: No

OF: And companies were received about John Lyons & Patricia Karvalas?

A: Yes

OF: Sanctioned or taken off air?

A: No

OF: So expressing political opinion does not necessarily cause sanction or dismissal?

A: No

OF: I'm suggesting ABC processes invite arbitrary decision-making, ultimately resting upon a delegate's own view?

A: There is a process of assessment

OF: And the presenter would normally be aware of what they had done?

A: Yes

Judge asks A to leave the room. Addresses OF. I thought you would ask A why he had not assured due process. Can you do this more directly?

OF: You know Lattouf was not a political reporter for the ABC?

A: Yes

OF: And so her personal social media post could not have had an impact on her partiality in air?

A: It could have.

OF: The ABC was subject to a coordinated campaign about Ms Lattouf?

A Yes, there were about 50 emails that were worded almost the same.

OF: Bearing in mind that it is not uncommon for the ABC to "ruffle feathers", are such communications looked into?

A: Yes

OF: How did you learn about the WhatsApp campaign?

A: I was told by a subordinate that the campaign was coordinated via WhatsApp. The emails were clogging up my email account. They were all the same so I stopped reading them.

OF: They said Ms Lattouf was anti-semitic.

A: Yes.

OF: You knew the campaign was coordinated by Lawyers for Israel?

A: I learned that later.

OF: You came to agree with the complaints that Ms Lattouf's criticism of Israel were ant-semitic?

A: I looked at her social media posts. I can't remember exactly what constituted anti-semitic hatred; whether it was her statements or surrounding statements.

OF: You mean other people's statements?

A: Yes. I became concerned about what Lattouf might say on air.

Read 11 tweets

Consortium News

@Consortiumnews

Feb 4

Our DAY THREE reporting on the Lattouf v. ABC case will be on this thread and starting at 10.15am AEDT, the proceedings can be viewed via this link ⬇️

Court will call on two documents from Feb 6 2025 & Jan 31 2025. The Applicant t has been given them.

ABC: The Applicant's intro jumbled the chronology of events. We will correct that. The decision that Lattouf would not continue to present was made solely by Mr Oliver-Taylor.

The only question for the court is the immediate reason for his decision.

A thread the Applicant wishes to construct is that Ms Buttrose, Anderson & Oliver-Taylor were hostile to Lattouf. There was only a perception of partiality in her social media posting.

A second thread is that complaints the ABC influenced actions taken. This is not so.

Now I'd like to turn to the contract between ABC & Lattouf.

ABC: Lattouf's contract mentions dates, hourly rate of pay, enterprise agreement, basis of agreement. It's a casual employment contract, which includes "should you be offered...", plus a variation term, which gives the ABC the right to alter dates before AND during the period of employment.

The contract also deals with the subject of termination. There is an agreement clause, which specifies ABC policies.

Lattouf began her employment on Monday Dec 18 2023. Less than 2 hours after her first program ended...

Judge wants to see intermediary correspondence.

Less than 2 hours after her first program ended, ABC began to receive complaints about Lattouf. Some came to Mr Anderson who forwarded them to Mr Oliver-Taylor & Mr Melkman, asking them to look into the matter.

Read 20 tweets

Consortium News

@Consortiumnews

Feb 3

x.com/Consortiumnews…

Our DAY TWO reporting on the Lattouf v. ABC case will be on this thread and starting at 10.15am AEDT, the proceedings can be viewed via this link ⬇️
youtube.com/watch?v=ewJZTJ…

Read our DAY ONE account below.
x.com/Consortiumnews… x.com/Consortiumnews…

https://x.com/SaulStaniforth/status/1749369434613928063

@antoinette_news Some background information on Lattouf's case.

https://x.com/SaulStaniforth/status/1749369434613928063

Recent longitudinal study of media bias on Israel-Palestine reporting at ABC Australia, providing context to the unlawful dismissal case of @antoinette_news.

johnmenadue.com/palestinian-vo…

"The Australian Broadcasting Corporation (ABC) is widely regarded as one of the most trusted brands in Australian media. This trust is underpinned by the ABC’s editorial policies. Among these policies, the principles of independence, impartiality, and diversity of perspectives are foundational.

For example, two principles are “Do not unduly favour one perspective over another” and “Ensure that editorial decisions are not improperly influenced by political [interests].”"

Read 31 tweets

Share this page!

Enter URL or ID to Unroll

Consortium News

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

More from @Consortiumnews

Consortium News

Consortium News

Consortium News

Consortium News

Consortium News

Consortium News

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Don't want to be a Premium member but still want to support us?

Send Email!