The Hon Simon
Crean
Minister for
the Arts
House of Representatives
Parliament
House
Canberra
ACT 2600
14th
Dec. 2012
Dear Minister
Early this
afternoon I will arrive at the offices of Screen Australia in Sydney in the
hope, after seven months of asking, that I may be provided with documentary
evidence that I have harassed, intimidated and placed at risk members of Screen
Australia’s staff.
It is on the
basis of these non-specific charges, backed up by no evidence, that Dr Ruth
Harley, Chief Executive Officer, with the blessing of the Screen Australia
Board, has banned me from having any dealings with Screen Australia. This ban
has effectively ended my career as an Australian filmmaker.
On the two
previous occasions that I have arrived in the Screen Australia foyer, during
business hours, requesting evidence of the crimes for which I have been tried
in absentia and found guilty, the police have been called and I have been
arrested. Given Screen Australia’s refusal to provide me with evidence of y
crimes that I have asked for repeatedly the same dynamic will, in all
likelihood, play out today and I will spend the weekend in jail.
Alternatively
and, I believe, more appropriately, I could, upon my arrival at Screen
Australia this afternoon, be provided with evidence that I have intimidated and
placed Screen Australia staff at risk. Even more appropriately, members of the Board
might meet with me and explain on the basis of what evidence they have ratified
Ruth Harley’s ban.
My suggestion,
made many times now, that this long running dispute be resolved by an
independent mediator, someone with no vested interest in the outcome, has been
refused by Screen Australia. Could this be because a mediator dealing with
facts and evidence only and not with mere allegations might arrive at a similar
conclusion to the one arrived at by Justice Stephen Rares in relation to Speaker
Peter Slipper this week.
Rares described
the sexual harassment case as an “abuse of process” carried out for
the “purpose
of causing significant public, reputational and political damage to Mr
Slipper.” Delete the word ‘sexual’, replace the word ‘political’ with
professional and ‘Slipper’ with ‘Ricketson’ and Rares’ description fits me
perfectly. Or does it? Might an independent mediator, upon appraising him or herself
with the evidence, arrive at a different conclusion? The key word here, of
course, is ‘evidence’ – required by courts and mediators alike but not viewed
as necessary by Screen Australia!
You could be
forgiven for believing that Screen Australia must have evidence of my having intimidated and placed at risk
members of its staff. Surely the Board would not ratify such a ban without
being presented with cogent evidence in support of it!? One would hope so!
If Screen
Australia is in possession of such evidence, why has it not been presented to
me – despite seven months of my asking for it? The release of one paragraph,
one sentence or even one phrase from my correspondence in which it is clear
that my intention is to intimidate and place staff at risk would be sufficient
to brand me a liar and as someone for whom being banned is an appropriate punishment
for such odious behavior.
Why, you must
ask yourself, do Ruth Harley and the Screen Australia Board feel that it is
necessary to have me arrested in the foyer of Screen Australia when all I am
doing is sitting there quietly waiting to be presented with evidence of my
crimes? Is this not a form of intimidation?
Why, you might
also ask, would I go to such lengths to prove my innocence? The answer is
simple. My reputation is important to me and I do not want it sullied by false
allegations that implicate me in behavior (intimidating and placing people at
risk) that would, under most circumstances, result in an Apprehended Violence
Order being taken out against the perpetrator.
Please, Mr
Crean, in the interests of natural justice, end this abuse of process by requesting
of Ruth Harley and the Screen Australia Board that they either provide me with
evidence of my crimes today or lift the ban that has been placed on me. If they
decide, with your blessing, to call the police instead, so be it. Early in the
new year I will be back in the Screen Australia foyer and will continue to make
such visits and be arrested until I am provided with evidence of my crimes.
best wishes
James
Ricketson
WTF is going on here? Why doesn't the Board destroy Ricketson's credibility by releasing the evidence upon which it has based its ban?
ReplyDeleteThis has nothing to do with intimidating correspondence (which seems not to exist) and very little to do with Ricketson himself. This is all about Ruth Harley sending a very strong message to the entire industry not to ask difficult questions and not to be critical in public of the way the organisation is run. Hw can the filmmakers on the Board be a party to all this!
DeleteA question for the Screen Australia Board:
ReplyDeleteIf Ricketson's ban is not evidence-based but arises from Ruth Harley's dislike of him, does the same apply when the Board makes decisions to either support or not support projects and/or filmmakers? Or, to put it another way, does evidence play a major or merely a peripheral role in the Board's decision making processes?
If the Board refuses to give James the evidence he has been asking for and to which he is entitled it will lose all credibility in my eyes.
ReplyDelete