Michelle Chantelois claims to have sex with South Australian Premier Mike Rann during a several-year affair. This ‘scandal’ has got the usual nationwide publicity. Ms. Chantelois made the claims during a paid television interview. I repeat the observations that I made about the sex-related incidents associated with the resignation of NSW’s John Della Bosca:
“…the press should have ignored the affair and concentrated on the real issues of politics. Sexual liaisons are private matters and there is no law against having them whether or not you are married.
We live in such a sexualized culture and yet there is a streak of sexual puritanism that persists particularly in the sensationalist media. You notice the same type of society-wide hypocrisy in the US”.
Indeed, press concerns with such issues, provide incentives for those who can receive money for revealing them, to do so. It is the press who are primarily at fault here. ‘We don’t report the news – we write it’ as a wit once noted.
I have no view on whether the allegations of Ms. Chantelois are correct or not. But voluntary sexual relations between consenting adults should never be newsworthy events that can be used by women to damage the careers of the partners they have selected.
Indeed given that the affair was unforced Ms. Chantelois’ comments reek of hypocrisy:
”He was calling the shots and I was his puppet,” she said. ”I would just follow his instructions and there were secret meetings. I would come and pick him up from the casino. He would get in the car and … direct me on where to go. [We would go] just on the side of the road at the golf course”.
“And I’m ashamed to say intimacy was involved. Then I would drive him back to Parliament House. He would … go back into the Parliament.”
“She said he should say sorry to those hurt by the affair”.
”I actually think he should be apologising to [estranged husband] Rick and my family, and to his wife Sasha and, unfortunately because I had to come clean, probably come clean to the public as well.”
When asked why Mr Rann should apologise to his wife, she said: ”Because he was lying and doing this behind her back.”
It is these sorts of views that are being splashed across the pages of the nation’s media. Mr. Rann called the shots, she was his puppet and the need for apologies is his. I am not caught in a time warp am I - this is 2009?
The sad thing about all this is that it provides some pretty strong disincentives to good leaders and administrators, who happen to also be philanderers, from getting involved in `The Open Conspiracy’. How many potential leaders have been dissuaded by fear of having their lives examined in detail?
Despite what the current bunch think, we don’t actually need personal moral leadership from our politicians. We need competency and a good work ethic–both of which Mr Rann has.
I agree wholeheartedly.
I, too, have been wondering whether we have suddenly been transported to Victorian England.
Sex between two consenting adults of the opposite sex hasn’t been illegal since Adam was a boy, so why is everyone making such a big deal of this? She was the one who was married; Rann wasn’t. If you are going to go down that moral road then she is clearly the one at fault, yet she seems to need for him to take (comparatively) more of the blame.
And how about the nudge, nudge, wink, wink at the end regarding her administration contract at a public high school not being renewed? They were quick to point out that they didn’t think Mike Rann had anything to do with it, but they made sure they put it out there all the same …
Nah you’ve got it all wrong. Rann’s personal problem arose publicly when the hubby of the bit of skirt he was bonking on the office desk got stuck into him with a (portentous)newspaper when they bumped into each other at a function. Now Rann clearly knew his attacker (as did the media scrum and everyone else in parliament no doubt) but pretended he didn’t.
As it turns out he knew quite well why he was being attacked but to admit it would mean admitting to his then wife, that he was playing up while she was his fiancee. He couldn’t face that so set out upon a tricksy and evasive course of action that finally had him playing the ‘poor victim’ and denying any sexual relationship with the barmaid from parliament house(she was just a good family friend and it’s not fair hubby is before the courts and I can’t refute this scuttlebut as it’s sub-judice and hence I’m the victim here, yada, yada, woe is me folks)
Now he could have just said I know the bloke and it’s personal and none of yer business and then went home to explain himself to the missus. Did he do that? No, he put the heat on the barmaid to cover his ass and played Mr Squeaky which all fell part with her kiss and tell with about $200k to help her get over the strain of it all naturally.
It all makes him look like a weasel, liar and a cheat and now like his missus, we all have to judge whether we’ll keep running with him. Since he was smart enough to become Premier, he knows he’s cactus now and will no doubt resign Monday in order to ‘spend more time with the missus’. He missed a function today and is incommunicado as he considers how best to spin falling on his weapon. Basically he knows we don’t want to be led around by a bloke who is led around by his dick and wants to pretend otherwise.
Oh spend more time with the missus and I don’t want this to be a distraction to the great Labor Party at the next election, yada, yada, the usual. All the Labor pollies at the function he was noticably absent from today were right behind him as the best man to lead the party at the next election, which means he’ll resign before smoko and we’ll have a new Premier before lunch.
Why? Because just like honesty and integrity with a business partner, fidelity and honesty are integral with a life partner. It’s not the sex act folks, it’s the betrayal of trust, just like getting caught with your finger in the till in business. Can the partner ever trust them again? Go figure.
Observa, You obsess with the circumstances which brought about the publicity. But Rann had rational expectations about the media – he accurately forecast the hysteria! BTW most men have dicks.
He didn’t say he didn’t know who the man was; he said he’d never MET him before, which was true.
Even if he did lie, there was a very good reason for it. It was nobody’s business. Add to that, there were innocent people who could get hurt by these allegations, not least of which are the woman’s CHILDREN.
It’s a pity SHE didn’t think of that before she went so very public.
Well it would appear the Premier is going to tough it out with these ‘false’ and ‘sensational’ allegations from a close family ‘friend’ who he now seems to believe was having a hard time with her marriage and husband at the time. Naturally he didn’t take sexual advantage of a waitress where he worked, who he knew was going through a tough trot in her marriage, albeit she is claiming he might have demeaned the Office of Premier by throwing the furniture aside and having it off with her on the floor of said office among other out of the way places. His hairy armpit brigade base, ever alert to the merest whiff of women as victims here, will of course rally round such understanding men in power when they clearly see them as the real victims under such mitigating circumstances.
It was mooted Ms Chantelois was getting $200k+ for her kiss and tell but according to her lawyer both Channel7 and New Idea payments combined were under a six figure sum and should have no bearing on the matter. Premier rann will be making a further statement about many of these false allegations made on air, albeit apparently there are over 5 hours of taped interview of which we only got a small edited offering.
As to Mike cheating on his fiancee or defacto at the time (now his wife)that’s easily put to bed (or the floor)because he states he wasn’t actually engaged to her at the time he was making up his mind whether he liked her or the married Ms Chantelois ‘family friend’ better at the time. Under the circumstances it would appear marrying his current wife was the wiser choice now that Ms Chantelois seems clearly unhinged by all this rejection. Stay tuned folks to Premier Rann as innocent victim here, who was only bending the truth to protect everyones’ feeling and two ladies honour.
I second comments above by Lynda.
Shabby Chantelois!
and shabby Seven network.
Was she a stooge for the SA mining industry or for The Opposition in a dirty tricks campaign re next March?
Here’s a New Idea too Anne. It could have been ASIO in cahoots with the CIA.
The similarity between Rann and Delabosca is not the behavior but the media coverage, people have been behaving like this forever it is the human condition, good or bad. What we once took for granted and thought was your private life and it being allowed to stay private has been slowly eroded. We seem to be ignoring the dumbing down of mainstream media as it shifts to the infotainment-sensational paradigm and becomes a trashy version of the many and various reality TV programs, magazines, that infest our world today. Just take a look a morning televsion’s daily output. To my mind Delabosca and Rann are merely minor celebs, who happen to be politicians, whose life is being reported upon just the same as any other nobody or somebody or sports start or whoever, everybody is now fodder for the consumption of infotainment, gormless self revelation and self aggrandisment, unless you the Prime Minister of Italy who appears to relish his public confirmation of his virility and wealth. Welcome to the 21st Century. Still the only thing that has’nt changed is women will still be disparaged for their conduct and we will try to find something exculpatory for the men.
MH, I reckon the media were happy to turn a blind eye to Rann’s alleged indiscretions until the hubby made it public(ie whack him with a newspaper) AND Rann apparently made a conscious decision to hide the truth of the matter, or rather bend the truth with “I’ve never met him before” and subsequently play the aggrieved, innocent victim in all of that. Furthermore when it naturally dragged the waitress into the public eye it appeared he was prepared to ditch an old ‘family friend’ for his own discretionary ends. That remains to be seen, but that’s what became the matter of public interest. What’s your take on the media’s role with Della Bosca in that regard?
In breaking news the Premier denies he ever had sex with that woman and will sue Channel7 and New Idea for defamation. He only ever had a ‘flirty’ friendship with her and has not been involved with her at all since 2005. Clearly someone is not telling the truth here although Mr Phillips is backing his missus’ story publicly and calling for the Premier’s scalp. Perhaps I was a bit too flippant about that ASIO/CIA connection after all but then the meeja in question do have over 5 hours of interview up their sleeve. Must be reasonably confident they’re on a winner here.
Only a South Australian could care about this non-event.
Gee Observa, your last comment is a bit of a climbdown. Actually, here is your chance to literally put your money where your mouth is – identify yourself as a “natural person” (as we say in court) and join Kerry Stokes as a defendant in litigation.
Well Sir Henry it would appear all Premier Rann is guilty of is choosing strange family friends. According to him Ms Chantelois is clearly unhinged or was always the full blown article. If Premier Rann was fooled by her once upon a time, then he isn’t alone, as clearly she’s managed to fool her husband and the legal eagles at New Idea and 7 to boot. I guess I’m in fairly good company if she sounded very plausible to me and lots of others too. I’m surprised under the circumstances Mike’s not suing her for defamation, at the very least to strip her of her ill-gotten gains. After all if he was taken in by her, he’d surely have some empathy for the good folk at New Idea and 7 I would have thought and hence go straight for the source. Mind you it might get interesting if she takes a public polygraph test and comes up trumps and you know those media folk.
Err.. you don’t suppose they already ran her through a polygraph test among that 5 hrs of footage we only got edited bits of do you?
Polygraphs are a load of rubbish and their findings are not recognised by any courts in Australia. This is also the case in the EC and Canada. In the US only 19 states allow polygraphs as evidence provided they were voluntary, while nobody can be obliged or induced to be so tested.
Did Channel Seven run her through a lie detector test? I don’t know but I doubt it. What if she’d failed it? Would they then trash the top-rating interview on the basis of the test? What if she said no? Would they have said the deal is off?
Did the Sunday Telegraph polygraph “Jack Johnson”, the putative photographer who sold them the “nude photos” of Pauline Hanson?
I’m aware of polygraph tests and courts of law but they’ll both be judged in the court of public opinion now. Well unless she’s got a stained little blue number tucked away I guess.
Actually the course is quite clear now and I’m surprised the Opposition haven’t jumped to the same conclusion after our Premier’s statement. Isobel Redmond must immediately call upon the DPP to take out an immediate restraining order on this woman and her husband and to have her mentally examined to ascertain if she’s certifiable. We can’t have our elected representatives exposed to such fruitcakes. Where the hell is the DPP on this?
Observa, the Rann story and Delabosca both fail the ‘who cares’ test. I certainly don’t care, just another bit of sensationalist titillation. Only thing missing in this story is a kid on a runaway balloon.