Bleats

Jacinda Ardern Pretty Much Just KO'd Scott Morrison Live On TV

Glorious.

We’ve seen NZ PM Jacinda Ardern publicly say “nope” to our PM Scott Morrison before when she sent him to voicemail mid-press conference and boy was it glorious. However, that pales in comparison to the absolute roasting she unleashed on him during their first face-to-face meeting of 2020.

Speaking of public burns, the GOAT team dissect the ridiculous Gigi Hadid vs Jake Paul feud on ‘It’s Been A Big Day For…’ below:

Jacinda Ardern had arrived in Sydney for her annual chat with Scott Morrison about the important issues Australia and NZ are facing, such as the coronavirus, deportation of New Zealanders from Australia, and climate change.

However, it was clear that Jacinda was having none of Scotty’s trademark word vomit and sought to underhandedly roast him at nearly every opportunity, so much so one has to wonder if it was all delibrate.

Case in point, this is her opening statement following Scotty’s big, blustering intro:

“It’s fair to say that since we last met as [Scott Morrison] mentioned tragedy and disaster had befallen our two countries. They say that in moments of that nature, the true character of an individual comes to the fore and I believe the same can be said of nations too.”

Oof.

That subtle burn basically set the tone for the media conference as it was less of a cordial exchange between world leaders and more like Jacinda Ardern slowly tearing Scott Morrison apart limb by limb.

After politely listing a lot of collaborations and issues that Australia and NZ have worked on and are working on, Jacinda wasted no time in saying how despite tragedy bringing Australia and NZ together, the relationship between the two countries have been tested due to politics.

On the topic of deporting Kiwis back to New Zealand, Jacinda says:

“Australia is well within its rights to deport individuals who break your laws. New Zealand does the same. But we have a simple request – send back Kiwis. Genuine Kiwis. Do not deport your people and your problems.”

Citing a case of a woman who was deported to New Zealand despite having lived in Australia since she was one, Jacinda stated that she has “heard from those who work in our judiciary that they are seeing cases before our courts of individuals who are failing attempts to reintegrate and rehabilitate because the success of these programs is reliant on at least some network. These deportees have none.”

Just to twist the knife in further, Jacinda stated that despite New Zealanders living in Australia are “more likely to be employed” and “pay more tax” than those born in Australia, the rights of Kiwis were still “being eroded” regardless. When pressed on the matter, Jacinda responded:

“We are not arguing that Australia should not have a deportation policy, they should and [NZ] does too. What we’re asking for is a reciprocal arrangement. NZ does not deport those who we consider, for all intents and purposes, to have established themselves as New Zealanders we only ask Australia does the same.”

As for what Scott Morrison response was, he tried to justify Australia’s stance on the matter, stating “Our government is well-known for our clear views when it comes to issues of immigration and border security – if you have committed a crime and you’re not a citizen of Australia, then you have no right to stay,” and “The Australian government’s policy is very clear. We deport non-citizens who have committed crimes in Australia against our community.”

When the topic of climate change came up, Scott Morrison humbly boasted how Australia and NZ have obligations under the Kyoto Protocol and Paris Agreement, how there’s a “plan” to achieve it and how Australia is doing well on that front (even if the numbers don’t back that up).

As for how Jacinda responded on this topic, well here it is:

“We each know each other’s policies. New Zealand has taken its position and Australia have taken theirs, and we discuss the expectations on both of us that the Pacific rightfully has of both of us.”

That was just one of a number of exchanges where Jacinda gave Scotty a piece of rope and he proceeded to dangle himself from it. The whole media conference is about 26 minutes but the part you’re all waiting for starts at the 3:47 mark.

Another week, another example of why Jacinda Ardern is the PM we all deserve. Just hand her the crown now because Scott Morrison ain’t getting back up from that brutal live TV murder.

Always be in the loop with our snackable podcast breaking the biggest story of the day. Subscribe to It’s Been A Big Day For… on your favourite podcast app.

The Harvey Weinstein Trial Explained, From Charges To Sentencing

What does it this guilty verdict mean for the disgraced movie mogul?

Warning, this Harvey Weinstein charges explainer discusses sexual assault and rape.

Harvey Weinstein’s high-profile trial in New York came to a climatic end as the disgraced Hollywood mogul was found guilty on two of the five charges he was facing, a verdict that serves as vindication for the MeToo movement.

It’s all quite confusing as to what this all means and what the difference is between each sexual assault charge due to the complexities of American law, so here’s an explainer on the five Harvey Weinstein charges and what happens now.

The GOAT team talk about the MeToo Movement and how that affects the legacy of another high-profile person, Kobe Bryant, on ‘It’s Been A Big Day For…’ below:

Of the five charges he was initially charged with – two counts of predatory sexual assault, one count of criminal sexual act in the first degree, one count of rape in the third degree, and one act of rape in the first degree – Harvey Weinstein was convicted on rape in the third degree and criminal sex act in the first degree.

In order for someone to be convicted of a charge, the jury’s decision must be unanimous. After five days of deliberation, jurors in Harvey Weinstein’s trial found him guilty on the aforementioned two charges while being unable to reach a unanimous verdict on the remaining three charges.

As this trial took place in the state of New York, the charges brought against Weinstein are defined under New York law and are as follows:

Criminal sexual act in the first degree

Under New York law, “criminal sex act” is a crime referring to non-consensual oral or anal sex. For a criminal sex act in the first degree, a person can be found guilty of it if they engage “in oral sexual conduct or anal sexual conduct” by “forcible compulsion.”

Forcible compulsion as defined under New York law means compelling someone using “physical force” or “by a threat, express or implied, which places a person in fear of immediate death or physical injury to himself or herself [or another person] or in fear that he or she [or another person] will immediately be kidnapped.”

In the context of the trial, Harvey Weinstein was found guilty of this charge by the jury after Miriam Haley testified that he forced himself upon her during a visit to his apartment in 2006 and performed oral sex on her without her consent.

Rape in the first degree

This is the most serious rape charge under New York law and a person can be found guilty of it if they engage in “sexual intercourse with another person” using “forcible compulsion” or if the victim is “incapable of consent by reason of being physically helpless.”

Harvey Weinstein was charged with this after former aspiring actress Jessica Mann testified that he raped her in a hotel room in 2013, saying he held the door shut before ordering her to undress.

The jury were unable to reach a unanimous verdict on this charge and Weinstein was acquitted of it.

Rape in the third degree

Under New York law, a person is guilty of this crime if they engage “in sexual intercourse with another person without such person’s consent” but it doesn’t require the prosecutors to prove “forcible compulsion.”

Harvey Weinstein was charged with this in addition to the rape in the first degree charge he got in connection with Jessica Mann’s testimony. The jury came to a unanimous verdict on this charge, meaning the prosecutors proved beyond a reasonable doubt that Jessica did not consent to sexual intercourse with Weinstein in 2013 but failed to prove the “forcible compulsion” element.

Predatory sexual assault (two counts)

The most serious crime of all the Harvey Weinstein charges that can carry a punishment of life imprisonment, New York law states that a person is guilty of this if they commit rape in the first degree or a criminal sexual act, and had committed other crimes of the same nature in the past (regardless if they were charged or convicted). In other words, prosecutors needed to show that Weinstein had a history of committing sexual crimes against multiple people.

Actress Annabella Sciorra was called to the stand and testified that Weinstein raped her in the 1990s. Prosecutors aimed to use Annabella’s testimony in addition to Miriam and Jessica’s allegations to establish a pattern of predatory behaviour.

Weinstein was charged on two accounts of this – one in connection with Miriam and Annabella’s allegations, and one in connection with Annabella and Jessica’s allegations – but was acquitted of both charges as the jury felt prosecutors didn’t prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Weinstein raped Annabella.

Now that we’ve established the difference between each charge, what does this all mean for Harvey Weinstein?

Judge James Burke ordered Weinstein to be remanded into custody without bail until the disgraced movie mogul’s sentencing on March 11. As for how long he’ll be behind bars, he faces five to 25 years for the first-degree criminal sexual assault conviction and 18 months to four years for the third degree rape conviction.

Weinstein’s lawyers state that they will appeal the verdict but they’re in for an uphill battle as the convicted mogul still faces four charges in Los Angeles. Notably, this represents the most high-profile sexual assault conviction during the MeToo Movement since Bill Cosby was found guilty in 2018.

Even though Harvey Weinstein was acquitted of the most serious charges, his conviction marks a long-awaited victory for the MeToo Movement and all the women involved, and the verdict represents something of a milestone for holding powerful men accountable for their actions.

If you, or anyone you know needs someone to talk to, contact Lifeline on 13 11 14.

Does Scott Morrison Really Think $2 Million Is Enough To Develop A Coronavirus Vaccine?

It's change from the couch compared to other countries.

The coronavirus outbreak has got everyone on edge right now as the world rallies together in an attempt to fight the disease. Australia’s response to the pandemic hasn’t exactly been great (sending infected Aussies to Christmas Island to be quarantined is a tough sell to the public), but it seems like Scott Morrison is determined to turn a new leaf by pledging a chunk of change to vaccine development.

Speaking of the coronavirus, the GOAT team talk about the biggest talking points about the disease on ‘It’s Been A Big Day For…’ below:

Standing alongside Health Minister Greg Hunt at the Doherty Institute in Melbourne, Scott Morrison announced (via SBS News) that the federal government will put $2 million into a “competitive” program that will go towards the development of a coronavirus vaccine by Australian researchers.

Researchers around the country can apply for this money from the Medical Research Future Fund to help them develop a coronavirus vaccine, though details on how to do this will be confirmed in the near future. With work already being undertaken by the Doherty Institute, CSIRO and University of Queensland, this grant will add more much-needed resources to the efforts in fighting the disease.

There’s no denying this is a step forward from Scott Morrison in fighting the coronavirus and $2 million is no small change, especially when you consider the work Australian researchers have done already, such as recreating a lab-grown version of the disease in an attempt to find a vaccine.

However, when you consider the impact the coronavirus has had on everyone and everything, and the potential impact on the Australian economy, surely Scott Morrison can pledge more than a measly $2 million towards vaccine development.

Just for comparison’s sake, the U.K. government has pledged $39 million towards the development of a coronavirus vaccine (via CNBC) despite being well out of the way of the disease. But let’s not turn this into a pissing contest over who is putting up more money than whom.

The bigger point, however, is the coronavirus’ impact on the Australian economy. With travel bans in place and a noticeable drop in foot traffic across the country, the tourism industry is set for a painful period.

According to The Guardian, Cairns and Gold Coast operators have already lost $200 and $400 million in bookings respectively, and small businesses around Australia are getting hit by the coronavirus panic. Just take a walk through Chinatown and you’ll see more tumbleweeds than people.

The Guardian reports that retail sector and universities aren’t free from the coronavirus either. Retailers such as JB Hi-Fi may face big distruptions to their supply of electronic goods due to Chinese factories being forced to close down, while international students won’t be allowed into Australia to attend uni due to the travel bans in place.

And then there’s the difficulty of developing a coronavirus vaccine as it’s something that takes a lot of time and resources. Even with a global effort (which isn’t helped by China withholding info), the World Health Organisation says it may take 18 months before a vaccine is available. $2 million isn’t anything to scoff at, but it’s small change when considered alongside the grand scheme of things.

With so much on the line for Australia, it really makes Scott Morrison’s $2 million pledge pretty insignificant, especially when you consider all that talk about Australia’s budget surplus.

Surely the government can dip into its pockets a bit more change to fight a disease that’s literally got the world in a panic. Maybe all that moolah is all wrapped up in that “sports rort” scandal our PM is facing at the moment and he’s unable to spare any more for a coronavirus vaccine.

The Simpsons may have (apparently) predicted the coronavirus, but I doubt that anyone (or any TV show) would’ve expected how much of an impact it would have on tourism and the economy. But hey, $2 million is better than nothing and it’s preferable to see Scott Morrison’s government spend it on vaccine development than sports clubs in marginal seats.

Always be in the loop with our snackable podcast breaking the biggest story of the day. Subscribe to It’s Been A Big Day For… on your favourite podcast app.

Pop-up Channel

Follow Us