I, like most Australians I imagine, had no idea who Mark McInnes was until earlier this year when he was named at the centre of a sexual harassment scandal and resigned from his position.

Of course the details of how his name was leaked before any legal action or the plaintiff was named are long gone, but that doesn’t negate the massive damages incurred thus far by McInnes.

Guilty or not, I have no idea but for all intents and purposes, McInnes personal reputation has been dragged through the mud. Accusing a rich CEO of sexual harassment is like accusing a single old man of pedophilia; doesn’t matter if they’re innocent or not – most people make up their mind long before the details of the case play out.

With this in mind, it’s somewhat ironic now that McInnes accuser, Kristy Fraser-Kirk, is claiming she’s suffering from psychiatric harm due to her identity being revealed.

I mean really, what did she think was going to happen?

By no means am I implying that McInnes did or didn’t sexually harass Fraser-Kirk but the fact of the matter is his details were leaked before any legal action was taken. Following the leak of his name Fraser-Kirk has since gone after David Jones and McInnes to the tune of thirty seven million dollars.

Now, whether it be because they were also sexually harassed or because they have dollar signs in their eyes, three other women have decided to jump onto the bandwagon for a slice of the action.

After having a cry about the intrusion into her own life, Fraser-Kirk is calling for the names of the three women to be suppressed until the hearing begins in December.

The problem?

In granting a suppression order a judge sets a massive backwards precedent for any future sexual harassment cases. They already have this in the UK where, even if found not guilty, the accuser is given the luxury of anonymity whereas the accused is forever left with mud stuck to their name.

In short there’s bugger all penalty for crying sexual harassment wolf and this is massively open to widespread abuse.

Get fired from your job? Just accuse your boss of sexual harassment.

Don’t want to work anymore? File for sexual harassment and hope for a big payout.

Worried about losing your husband? Claim you didn’t give consent and that ‘he made you do it’.

(I’m aware that males can sue for sexual harassment but cmon, when was the last time you heard that happen?).

It might sound harsh but if you’re going to accuse someone in a high profile (it doesn’t have to be a public high profile) of something as serious and personally damaging as sexual harassment, then you should be prepared to stand by your words. Especially if the details of the person you’re accusing magically get leaked before any action is taken.

Does anyone honestly think that McInnes own personal life hasn’t been intruded upon nor has he had people sifting through every nook and cranny of his personal life?

Of course he has and it’s only natural in a case like this.

Vultures are everywhere and the rich and powerful make for juicy targets – moreso if you’re a successful male. Just the mere association of sexual harassment is enough to trash someone’s reputation and it’s completely ridiculous to suggest that there be no personal liability for doing so.

I’m not for a second suggesting the Fraser-Kirk and the three other women who are accusing McInnes of sexual harassment are lying… but without any sense of public naming and shaming for lying – what’s stopping future would be accusers from running riot?

What’s good for the goose is good for the gander; if the accussed are to be named then so must the accusers. Anything less and we’re just leaving the door wide open to blackmail and gold digging.

Worst case scenario I know, but do we really expect anything less in a modern day litigious frenzied society?



Related posts that might interest you:
  1. Kristy Fraser-Kirk: How to ruin your life for $850,000
  2. Did Tom Williams deserve to get bashed?