"In our recent legal history, there are two striking examples of women caught in the media spotlight who did not ''emote'' in an acceptable manner, who didn't, in short, "act" like they were "supposed" to. The most infamous, of course, is the case of Lindy Chamberlain. Accused of killing her infant, Azaria, at Uluru in 1980, Chamberlain remained stoic and defiant in court and in the face of intense media scrutiny, which only heightened suspicions about her.
More recently, Joanne Lees, who survived a terrifying ordeal in the outback, and whose boyfriend Peter Falconio was murdered, was also distrusted because of her emotional restraint. In a 2006 interview on Enough Rope, Andrew Denton asked Lees about the criticism she endured because of her controlled public demeanour.
Lees said: "I chose to sort of grieve in private, or - and I guess all I can say is I was a victim of a violent and serious crime and had no support or guidance. I didn't know there was a rule-book or a manual on how to behave. As far as I'm concerned, I was just being myself, and that's all anyone can do in that situation."
She added that it was "the Yorkshire way" to refrain from overt public grieving."
GABRIELLA COSLOVICH: THE AGE:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
BACKGROUND: WIKIPEDIA): Michael and Lindy Chamberlain's first daughter, Azaria, was born on June 11, 1980. When Azaria was two months old, Michael and Lindy Chamberlain took their three children on a camping trip to Ayers Rock, arriving on August 16, 1980. On the night of August 17, Chamberlain reported that the child had been taken from her tent by a dingo. A massive search was organised, but all that was found were remains of some of the bloody clothes, which confirmed the death of baby Azaria. Her body has never been discovered. Although the initial coronal inquiry supported the Chamberlains' account of Azaria's disappearance, Lindy Chamberlain was later prosecuted for the murder of her child on the basis of the finding of the baby's jumpsuit and of tests that appeared to indicate the presence of blood found in the Chamberlains' car. This forensic gathering convicted her of murder on October 29, 1982, and sentenced her to life imprisonment; the theory was that she slit the child's throat and hid the body. Michael Chamberlain was convicted as an accessory to murder. Shortly after her conviction, Lindy Chamberlain gave birth to her fourth child, Kahlia, on November 17, 1982, in prison. An appeal against her conviction was rejected by the High Court in February, 1984. New evidence emerged on February 2, 1986 when a remaining item of Azaria's clothing was found partially buried near Uluru in an isolated location, adjacent to a dingo lair. This was the matinee jacket which the police had maintained for years did not exist. Five days later, Chamberlain was released. The Northern Territory Government publicly said it was because "she had suffered enough." In view of inconsistencies in the earlier blood testing which gave rise to potential reasonable doubts about the propriety of her conviction and as DNA testing was not as advanced in the early 1980s it emerged that the 'baby blood' found in her car could have been any substance, Lindy Chamberlain's life sentence was remitted by the Northern Territory Government and a Royal Commission began to investigate the matter in 1987. Chamberlain's conviction was overturned in September, 1988 and another inquest in 1995 returned an open verdict. In recent years there have been fatal dingo attacks on children, one famous instance being at the holiday resort at Fraser Island.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PUBLISHER'S NOTE: It's hard to imagine a more reasonable request than Lindy Chamberlain's bid for a new death certificate which will record the truth - that Azaria was killed by a dingo. To lose a child in those circumstances is bad enough. To be branded as her killer on the basis of ignorance, fear-mongering, faulty police investigation, erroneous expert evidence and a wanting court process, makes matters all the worse. This is compounded by an oppressive prosecution in which Lindy Chamberlain did not have the opportunity to access and conduct tests on key pieces of forensic evidence before her trial. A refusal by the authorities to take such a simple, warranted step, would only be seen as furthering the injustice inflicted on Lindy Chamberlain and her family. It is no answer to say she has been pardoned or that her conviction has been quashed. There will understandably be no closure from the legal process and its dreadful consequences for her until the public record - the death certificate - is corrected. That can't happen soon enough.
HAROLD LEVY; PUBLISHER; THE CHARLES SMITH BLOG.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"In a week when important local and international news was not exactly lacking (and I'm not referring here to the latest moist instalment of the Hurley-Warne love-in) Julia Gillard's tears made front page news across the country. Front page." the column by Gabriella Coslovich published in The Age on February 12, 2011 begins, under the heading, "Women damned if they show emotion, damned if they don't."
"Finally, the Prime Minister, who has endured criticism and ridicule for her flat and forced performances, let loose. She ''broke down'' and cried in Parliament while giving a speech about Queensland's floods. And, in a theatrically patriotic flourish, she heightened the drama by solemnly unfurling a muddied Australian flag," the column continues.
"Her tribute to the Queensland flood victims was described in the media as ''heartfelt'', ''genuine'' and as the first display of ''real emotion''. Photos of Gillard looking grim, drawn and pale supported the evaluations.
Advertisement: Story continues below
There was more than a hint of triumphalism in some of the media coverage. We had bayed for raw emotion, and finally we'd got it. Gillard is human after all! Although some continued to doubt it, seeing the tears-and-flag double-act as yet another contrived performance, choreographed and coached by spin doctors.
But I'm no political expert and it's not my role to appraise Gillard's performance as leader. What concerns me is the fanatical demand for emotion on-cue and the notion that there is a "proper" way to express our feelings.
There's a double standard at work here - we say we want honest and candid behaviour, but when we see it, we don't necessarily like it, as Tony Abbott discovered to his detriment this week.
When it comes to women, the expectation of ''appropriate'' behaviour is magnified. In the workplace, women risk being seen as ''over-emotional''. But if they dare to assert themselves they may also be tarnished with the "aggressive'' tag.
In their social roles, however, women are expected to be nurturing, maternal and emotionally expressive.
In our recent legal history, there are two striking examples of women caught in the media spotlight who did not ''emote'' in an acceptable manner, who didn't, in short, "act" like they were "supposed" to. The most infamous, of course, is the case of Lindy Chamberlain. Accused of killing her infant, Azaria, at Uluru in 1980, Chamberlain remained stoic and defiant in court and in the face of intense media scrutiny, which only heightened suspicions about her.
More recently, Joanne Lees, who survived a terrifying ordeal in the outback, and whose boyfriend Peter Falconio was murdered, was also distrusted because of her emotional restraint. In a 2006 interview on Enough Rope, Andrew Denton asked Lees about the criticism she endured because of her controlled public demeanour.
Lees said: "I chose to sort of grieve in private, or - and I guess all I can say is I was a victim of a violent and serious crime and had no support or guidance. I didn't know there was a rule-book or a manual on how to behave. As far as I'm concerned, I was just being myself, and that's all anyone can do in that situation."
She added that it was "the Yorkshire way" to refrain from overt public grieving.
Different cultures express emotions differently. There's the oblique and compliant manner of some Asian cultures, the extravagant expressiveness of the Latins and the thoroughly gushing ways of some Americans. Talk-show queen Oprah Winfrey was in Australia recently, and she excelled in whipping crowds into an emotional frenzy - were these emotions for real?
In the era of reality television, tabloid talk-shows and the internet, trumped-up emotions are pervasive. On social media sites, people present themselves in hyped-up, sexed-up and manufactured ways. It's becoming more complicated to decide what is "sincere".
Some people are indeed better than others at being empathetic, and of knowing the most appropriate way to respond in different situations. Psychologists talk about "emotional intelligence", or "EI", and have devised ways of measuring it. Emotionally intelligent people are skilled at understanding and managing their own feelings and those of others - Queensland Premier Anna Bligh is a pertinent example. But unlike IQ, emotional intelligence is not static - it can be developed. Abbott, in refraining from throttling the TV reporter who had baited him about his "shit happens" comment, was at least trying to manage his emotions.
When I saw photos of the lachrymose and ashen-faced Gillard, I couldn't help feeling that she was distressed by more than the floods. I know it's part of the rough and tumble of political life, but it can't be easy being subjected to relentless scrutiny and censure for everything from your house-keeping skills to your ability to "appear" authentic.
And I understand that she is partly to blame for the prurient interest in her ability to emote - or not. She did, unfortunately, encourage the character dissection when she raised the notion of the ''real Julia'' versus the primped and staged one.
Humans are hard-wired to evaluate, assess and judge others, it's part of our survival mechanism. But perhaps we could step back a little and remember that people are different and that their abilities and ways of dealing with emotions vary, too.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The story can be found at:
http://www.theage.com.au/opinion/politics/women-damned-if-they-show-emotion-damned-if-they-dont-20110211-1aqkw.html
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PUBLISHER'S NOTE: The Toronto Star, my previous employer for more than twenty incredible years, has put considerable effort into exposing the harm caused by Dr. Charles Smith and his protectors - and into pushing for reform of Ontario's forensic pediatric pathology system. The Star has a "topic" section which focuses on recent stories related to Dr. Charles Smith. It can be accessed at:
http://www.thestar.com/topic/charlessmith
For a breakdown of some of the cases, issues and controversies this Blog is currently following, please turn to:
http://www.blogger.com/post-edit.g?blogID=120008354894645705&postID=8369513443994476774
Harold Levy: Publisher; The Charles Smith Blog; hlevy15@gmail.com;
