Time to move scandal beyond the politicking

Following the latest Labour Party scandal involving allegations of sexual assault, once again it seems a trial is taking place in the court of public opinion rather than in a court of law.

One can only wonder why the Labour Party appointed QC Maria Dew to investigate serious criminal allegations. Surely, by default, this is a matter for the police to investigate rather than an employment lawyer. However, it seems no-one has reported the matter to police.

In an interview with The Spinoff, one of the individuals who has made allegations of sexual assault said she did not make a formal complaint to police because ‘‘I thought about the amount of people who come forward and then the number who actually get convictions, and it just felt like it was going to be really hard’’. OK, that is understandable. However, what is not understandable is why others, politicians included, continue to debate the intricacies of this case, instead of reporting what they know to police.

This is where it gets messy and is why NZ First leader Winston Peters called the Labour Party scandal ‘‘a disgraceful orgy of speculation and innuendo’’.

Although Peters’ choice of words was unashamedly brash and vulgar, and could have been better articulated, he is correct regarding ‘‘speculation and innuendo’’, because no-one has been convicted, let alone charged, with any offence in relation to this matter.

Meanwhile, National Party deputy leader Paula Bennett has made claims under the protection of parliamentary privilege about those inside the prime minister’s office and a cabinet minister who supposedly knew of the sexual assault allegations.

If Bennett is privy to such information, then, as a member of Parliament, she is morally obliged to pick up the phone and arrange a time to make a formal statement to police.

Bennett has labelled the individuals who have made allegations of sexual assault as ‘‘victims’’.

Within the binary structure of language, which itself is debatable, words are defined not in and of themselves, but in relation to their opposites. This means that if a ‘‘victim’’ exists within this set of circumstances, then a ‘‘perpetrator’’ must also exist.

Hence, the concept of ‘‘victim’’ can be used as a rhetorical tactic to assign guilt to someone in the court of public opinion.

Accordingly, the recent solicitor-general’s guidelines for prosecuting sexual violence defines a ‘‘victim’’ as being a ‘‘complainant in respect of whose allegation(s) there has been a plea or verdict of guilty against a defendant in a criminal proceeding’’. That is unfair, though, to individuals who have been sexually assaulted and have not seen justice done.

In contrast to Bennett, Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern has taken care to avoid using the ‘‘victim’’ label in her official statements.

Her post-cabinet press conference on September 9 did not mention ‘‘victim’’ at all.

And, although she mentioned a ‘‘victim-centred approach’’ and ‘‘victims advocate’’ at her postcabinet press conference on September 16, she instead used ‘‘complainant’’ or ‘‘complainants’’ at least 25 times in that conference, in reference to the individuals who have made allegations of sexual assault in the Labour Party scandal. The prime minister has applied the same strategy in her interview with Duncan Garner and in other media interviews.

But don’t be fooled that the prime minister is merely following the terminology used in the solicitor-general’s guidelines. She has a bachelor of communication studies degree in public relations and political science, which means she has expertise in persuasive strategies.

Her repetitive and preferred use of ‘‘complainant’’ is also a rhetorical tactic. The term ‘‘complainant’’ is a more neutral term than ‘‘victim’’ and it works to delay any assignment of guilt to an accused because of its neutrality. Furthermore, it is associated to ‘‘complain’’ and ‘‘complaining’’ – all of which have negative connotations.

It is fair to say that the distinct uses of labelling by Bennett and the prime minister are associated to their political positions in relation to the Labour Party scandal.

It may seem pedantic to make a fuss over language, but it is important to remember the power of labelling and the connotations that go with it. It is a reminder too that we should consider how language is carefully packaged and presented to us by our politicians.

In this case, though, it is time for our politicians to ‘‘zip it, sweetie’’ and allow the police to investigate.

Steve Elers is a senior lecturer at Massey University, who writes a weekly column for Stuff on social and cultural issues. Follow him on Twitter: @Steveelers

The term ‘‘complainant’’ is a more neutral term than ‘‘victim’’ and it works to delay any assignment of guilt to an alleged accused because of its neutrality.