Spare us, Grace Tame. Your six-months-late, non-apology ‘apology’ video is insulting tripe. I’ve got the proof that you know it, too: PETER VAN ONSELEN
Commentator Peter van Onselen has strongly criticised Australian sexual assault survivor-advocate Grace Tame over a video statement in which she addressed comments she made in March dismissing reports of rape during the 7 October Hamas attacks on Israel as "propaganda" that had been "debunked". Van Onselen argues her belated statement, issued six months later, is not a genuine apology but a self-serving attempt at damage control, coinciding with a decline in her public speaking engagements and Australia's renewed focus on sexual violence allegations involving the Sydney Swans and two private schools.
In the video, Tame claims her original comments were "misinterpreted" and a "mischaracterisation", citing Human Rights Watch's inability to verify mass rapes through its own interviews. Van Onselen counters that the same Human Rights Watch report referenced UN findings of reasonable grounds to believe rape and gang rape occurred at multiple sites, and notes Tame's original ABC Radio remarks to host Hamish Macdonald left no room for ambiguity. He also draws a parallel with Prime Minister Anthony Albanese's earlier "misinterpretation" excuse after calling Tame "difficult", which Tame herself had publicly rejected, accusing van Onselen's piece of highlighting what he calls her hypocrisy and selective solidarity with victims.
In short
- Grace Tame issued a video statement, six months after controversial October 7 remarks
- Columnist Peter van Onselen calls it a non-apology full of deflection
- Piece accuses Tame of hypocrisy over selective solidarity with victims
Steelman: both sides, in good faith
The strongest fair case each way — we don't pick a winner.
The case for
Van Onselen’s case is that Tame’s original remarks dismissed serious reports of sexual violence too categorically, and that her later statement does not clearly acknowledge the harm or correct the record. He argues that citing Human Rights Watch’s inability to verify the reports through its own interviews omits the report’s reference to UN findings, making the video look more like damage control than an apology.
The case against
Tame’s account is that her remarks have been mischaracterised and that she was referring to the limits of what Human Rights Watch could independently verify, rather than claiming no sexual violence occurred. A critic’s interpretation of her words or the timing of her video cannot by itself establish her motives; her position can be understood as disputing how the evidence was presented while resisting pressure to make an apology she does not consider warranted.
Explained simply
Grace Tame is an Australian advocate for survivors of sexual abuse who became widely known after campaigning for changes to laws that restricted survivors from speaking publicly. Peter van Onselen is a political commentator and journalist who has written critically about her response to claims of sexual violence during Hamas’s 7 October 2023 attacks on Israel.
The dispute centres on remarks Tame made in March, when she described reports of rape during the attacks as propaganda that had been debunked. In a video statement six months later, she said her comments had been misinterpreted and referred to Human Rights Watch’s difficulty verifying the reports through its own interviews; the organisation’s report also cited UN findings of reasonable grounds to believe rape and gang rape had occurred.
Van Onselen argues that Tame’s statement does not amount to a sincere apology and compares her explanation with one previously offered by Prime Minister Anthony Albanese after he called her difficult. The argument matters because it concerns how public figures discuss sexual violence allegations and whether they apply the same standards to victims across different conflicts.