Malicious pile-on against Porter has political agenda

In all the fevered frenzy over the historical rape allegations against Christian Porter, could someone please explain to me the difference between these and the rape allegations made against Bill Shorten in 2014?

The only difference I can discern is that while a dignified restraint was applied in the response to the Shorten case, there has been a malicious pile-on against Porter. The ABC and Opposition politicians are at the forefront of this, and the purpose does not seem to be concern for the alleged victim, but a desire to ruin Porter’s career and reputation, and to damage the government.

In the case of the ABC, the reckless reporting of selective information further damages its claims to be unbiased, and the Labor Party opens itself up to charges of rank hypocrisy.

Carolyn Crane, Fig Tree Pocket, Qld

Concerning the historical rape allegation facing Christian Porter, there is one major factor that seemingly cannot be denied by any party. There was a gross lack of supervision, including the provision of a chaperone (a protective carer, a minder), or a curfew for members of the national schools debating team at the World Universities Championships held at the University of Sydney in January 1988. The woman in question, who was 16 at the time of the alleged rape and a long way from home, has been quoted as saying there was “dancing, drinking, partying until late — very late ... I was drunk”. Who was taking care of these teenagers?

Rick Drewer, Gawler East, SA

Inherent in the notion of the presumption of innocence is that Christian Porter neither needs nor should be required “to clear his name”. Every letter or comment that acknowledges our legal foundations, then observes perceived limitations in the law and calls for “a different approach” demonstrates the inconsistency and hypocrisy of the writer’s position. They’re dreaming. Please stop doing it.

Either there is a presumption of innocence or there isn’t. It is (very sadly) true that sometimes there is no remedy, no path forward. Procedural fairness, due process, in this case is not possible by using a “different approach”, or “(finding) some way to resolve the allegation” (Michael Schilling, Letters, 9/3).

The complainant is dead and can offer no testimony. The accused cannot test her allegations by cross-examination, yet he is expected to submit to this process. There’s the fundamental flaw.

Leni Palk, Unley, SA

What happens if an inquiry is launched into the Christian Porter allegation? What does one do with the result? If he is cleared will that satisfy those baying for his blood or will they push for an inquiry into the inquiry? If he is found guilty, then what? According to the law there is no case to answer, so what punishment can be dished out?

Ivan Cope, Manly West, Qld

What well-presented arguments by Angela Shanahan (“Political stunt takes focus off the most vulnerable”, 6-7/3). The ABC, Labor, the Greens, crossbenchers, some section of the media and, of course, the social media contingent are using the rape allegation against Christian Porter as a means of political warfare. Rape is a serious crime and the behaviour of those mentioned above should not be tolerated.

We have the police to investigate this allegation and courts to determine guilt and punishment. It is not the role of all branches of the media and members of parliament to be the police, judge, jury and executioner.

The behaviour by those in the Opposition and on the crossbenches calling for an inquiry is not about justice but about destabilising the government, as Shanahan points out. That is dirty politics. Yet in all of this, again as Shanahan points out, the above are silent on the plight of Aboriginal women and children in remote communities. It seems they would rather scream for the heads of Porter and Linda Reynolds while remaining silence on the plight of our most vulnerable.

Carryn McLean, Kingsley, WA

As Christian Porter was a minor at the time of the alleged offence he would have been protected by the Children’s Court if it had gone to trial. So why is he subject to public exposure/abuse as an adult? Does this public exposure set a legal precedent for all future cases?

Graham Palmer, Hillarys, WA