“If I wasn’t sacked, what was it?” requested Antoinette Lattouf rhetorically, tweeting her bemusement on the newest twist within the ABC’s evolving defence towards her declare that it sacked her unlawfully due to her political opinions and her Lebanese race.
If the ABC’s place is coherent, it’s doing an excellent job of making the other impression. As of yesterday, half the media had been reporting that the ABC had accomplished an entire 180, reversing its unique stance that it had terminated Lattouf from her short-term contract as a presenter as a result of she breached its social media coverage.
The opposite half picked up its spin to the impact that no, it by no means mentioned it had sacked her. As a substitute it “determined to not require [her] to carry out the final two of her 5 shifts … as a result of [she] had failed or refused to adjust to instructions that she not put up on social media about issues of controversy throughout the quick interval she was presenting”.
Lattouf’s lawyer Josh Bornstein cleared it up: the ABC’s unique response, filed with the Honest Work Fee, confirmed that it had terminated her employment, however it has since filed an amended response that claims the other.
That’ll be the results of recent authorized eyes trying on the proof and asking: “Um, are you certain you truly sacked her?” If the declare that it didn’t is made good, then her case within the fee fails altogether. I’m guessing the argument can be that what actually occurred after Lattouf’s well-known reposting of a Human Rights Watch (HRW) put up alleging “the Israeli authorities is utilizing hunger of civilians as a weapon of struggle in Gaza”, was that the choice was made to pay her for her final two slots however not put her on air. Principally, bench her, then escort her to the automobile park.
That’ll be an fascinating authorized argument, however what’s extra fascinating is the air of panic pervading the ABC’s mishandling of this rolling authorized and reputational catastrophe. Earlier than we go into the element, did the ABC significantly not realise that booting Lattouf mid-contract, within the present heightened ambiance round Israel-Gaza, would trigger an on the spot shitstorm?
Worse, the ABC knew what no person else did on the time: that it was being bombarded by a coordinated marketing campaign attempting to foyer it into sacking Lattouf, pushed by at the very least two WhatsApp teams referred to as Legal professionals for Israel and “J.E.W.I.S.H. Australian creatives and teachers”. Did it not suppose this is able to come out, and that it could look very very similar to the general public broadcaster had caved in to a political foyer group demanding blood?
What makes the amateurish incompetence unforgivable is the lengthy historical past of fuck-ups which have preceded this. Its serial failures to defend its individuals from exterior abuse and ideological assaults (examples embrace Louise Milligan, Stan Grant and Sophie McNeill), its willingness to spend public cash on defendable authorized claims (Christian Porter, Andrew Laming, Bruce Lehrmann), the rising proof of failure to guard workers from various backgrounds, and the apparent absence of a strong moral or logical foundation to the way it enforces its employees social media coverage — all have made it a simple goal for criticism and mock. If it wins Lattouf’s case, it would nonetheless lose.
The ABC’s social media coverage is designed to dissuade its presenters and employees from posting privately in any respect, though it claims that it neither encourages nor discourages that. The truth that the ABC has closed virtually all its official social media accounts tells us how cowed it has grow to be by the last decade of Coalition/Murdoch-led torment it has endured. It runs scared now, by default.
The foundations inform presenters to deal with their non-public posts as in the event that they’re talking for the ABC. In observe, if a put up attracts criticism, the ABC has been more and more keen to throw its individuals underneath a bus.
Lattouf’s case exemplifies the issue: earlier than she was employed, she had been posting very stridently about Israel’s actions in Gaza. So she was given the ridiculous injunction that, throughout the week she can be on air, she should not put up on something controversial. What does that imply? No person might faux to know. However the subtext was apparent: Lattouf, and particularly Lattouf, was not allowed to speak about Israel.
When she did repost HRW’s report, which the ABC had already printed as information, that breached her phrases of engagement, not as a result of it was inherently or clearly controversial (objectively, it couldn’t have been), however as a result of she had been warned off the subject material completely.
If she was terminated, then the authorized query is why. Was it, because the ABC initially argued, as a result of she was advised “don’t do X” and he or she did X? Or was it as a result of she had been positioned in a particular field of impossibility, to exist during which she was obliged to sacrifice basic human rights loved by her friends?
If Lattouf was not an outspoken lady of Lebanese ethnicity who had not hidden her opinions on what Israel is doing, would she have been so pre-emptively constrained? Having printed a put up that didn’t categorical an opinion in any respect however merely reported what a number one human rights organisation had claimed, would she have been summarily silenced?
An organisation in contact with its personal values would know the solutions to those questions. The ABC, it’s painfully clear, has no concept. Its employees has declared zero confidence within the managing director. It’s spinning within the void.
