|
Post by angra on Nov 13, 2012 22:49:20 GMT 10
Also I think Pell has a point (Arch-dickhead though he is). Remember the Brethren, the Witnesses, The Family, the Scouts (Scouting for Boys) and John Marsden?
|
|
|
Post by Matthew Of Canberra on Nov 14, 2012 16:14:20 GMT 10
I don't think cole was shut down - just very constrained.
I see latham's asking for trouble today. He's made the mistake of thinking that bolta will ever actually allege _anything_ significant about gillard's career as a lawyer. He just quotes, approves, suggests, then inserts MFEDs (Merely Formal Exculpatory Devices).
What he's getting at (and that's all he can be accused of) is every bit as bogus, but it's a lot harder to pin him down on actually being wrong ... because he's angling at things he can't prove, and he's got a lot of experience at doing that.
Latham's probably just used to dealing with people who actually just say what they're getting at. I know - it takes some getting used to.
|
|
|
Post by Matthew Of Canberra on Nov 15, 2012 7:16:43 GMT 10
Er ... what? Bolt's gone bezerk this week. The sheer volume of weaseling, concern-trolling, apologising and nonsense is too great to cover - I've got work to do! But this one ... I wonder if he thought this through ... This, for instance, is absurd:PRIESTS and clergy who refuse to break the seal of confessional before the Royal Commission face being jailed for six months.
Cardinal George Pell pledged this week confession was “inviolable” but the sweeping powers of a royal commission into the cover-up of child sexual abuse will compel priests to answer questions.
Constitutional lawyer George Williams said he expected clergy to face jail rather than divulge what they have been told inside a confessional. How many children would truly be saved from child abuse if law-makers destroyed the seal of the confessional? How much better off would anyone be if we started to jail priests for refusing to break their sacred duty not to reveal confessions? That much, I partly agree with. I don't personally see why priests should be any different to any other person, viz the laws on being an accessory if they don't report a crime that they know will or has been committed. They're not regulated, they serve no judicial purpose, they're not doctors. I understand that there might actually be real psychological and social benefits to confession, but there's a difference between being a sounding board for interpersonal gripes and petty scams and being a silent party to a serious crime of assault against a person. However ... I don't see how this can be enforced. Who on earth can say what somebody has heard in private? Even if a perp admits to telling a priest something, there are no recording devices in the booth, so it's one person's word against another. It's just silly. This SHOULD be left up to the individual's conscience, with the provisos that (a) they will be supported, and (b) their behavior will, ultimately, reflect on their institution. That said ... I would imagine, andrew, that if a priest did in fact have knowledge of abuse, that would be precisely the information that people are talking about when they say "breaking the seal of confessional". So yes, theoretically that would be the sort of information that could lead to the jailing of perpetrators. That's the point. Ultimately, I think the focus on the confessional is silly. It says more about prejudices than it does about how these crimes were actually hidden and covered up. I think it's a distraction. But then I think bolta goes a bit silly: It is a pity that Tony Abbott seems too worried about being trapped politically as Captain Catholic to defend the church:Opposition Leader Tony Abbott also said priests should tell police when they knew a child was being sexually abused. Er ... WHAT? Tony has to be "trapped politically" in order to say something so blinking self-evident?!? To express the view that priests should act on information about child abuse is failing to defend the church? I think somebody tried to finesse that one a bit too much. Bolta also needs to remember the difference between the ABC and a royal commission. Evidence of journalists not liking the history of church abuse and cover-ups does not mean that an appointed judge will therefore ignore other institutional histories. For a guy who reckons this royal commission is a good idea, andrew's remarkably concerned about it actually going ahead, and it seems to be come down to looking out for the interests of one very large, very wealthy, very powerful institution.
|
|
|
Post by richard on Nov 15, 2012 12:40:15 GMT 10
The Bolter follows up his blog post with a column titled ‘Beware an anti-Catholic witch hunt in the royal commission’ According to him, the royal commission:
‘…already risks going badly off the rails and becoming not a force for good, but of cultural destruction.’
Reasonable people may find it comically premature to comment on the flaws of an inquiry that has not has its Terms of Reference framed and released or a Commissioner appointed. That does not stop the Bolter of course. His shtick is to sow fear, uncertainty and doubt, liberally fertilised with misdirection and lies, in an ill informed audience.
Apparently there are three ‘dangers’ the public should fear in regard to the inquiry. They are that:
1. It becomes an anti-Catholic crusade,
2. It treats allegations as proof; and
3. It doesn't stop the worst sex abuse today.
You could write reams on why his ‘dangers’ are rubbish, but I simply can’t be bothered. Instead, I’ll provide one sentence per ‘danger’.
1. It becomes an anti-Catholic crusade.
Dog whistle to those who imagine ‘the left’, whatever that might mean, are bent on destroying religious institutions in general and the Catholic Church in particular or at the very least are stoking the fires of sectarian hatred.
2. It treats allegations as proof.
A fear based upon nothing: invokes the fear of a ‘leftist’ controlled Star Chamber.
3. It doesn't stop the worst sex abuse today.
The Royal Commission will be an inquiry into child abuse within institutions both religious and secular, not a Police task force, and so quite obviously is not intended to stop the abuse ‘today’.
If you go to the effort of reading this column (http://www.heraldsun.com.au/opinion/beware-an-anti-catholic-witch-hunt-in-the-royal-commission/story-e6frfifx-1226516898647) ,which I don’t urge anyone to do, you will find that the Bolter has saddled up his hobby horse in order to do a little rough riding over Aboriginals- in short: Aboriginal deaths in police custody is a myth, Aboriginal communities are hotbeds of paedophilia.
Why should the Bolter, as a self declared agnostic, want to protect the Roman Catholic Church against a ‘witch hunt’? One obvious possibility is that flak for Cardinal Pell resulting from the inquiry, and there will be plenty of flak, equals flak for Abbott.
Sowing the idea that the Royal Commission is a politically inspired tactic by the government to attack Tony ‘Captain Catholic’ Abbott, as the Bolter described him, helps mitigate the future damage.
|
|
|
Post by Sammy Jankis on Nov 15, 2012 12:55:56 GMT 10
I almost couldn't believe his "The great anti-Catholic witch-hunt" post. Almost. It's fascinating how one of his examples of anti-Catholicism is a quote of one Geoffrey Robinson - a Catholic Bishop. Also, suggesting that the law of the land should superscede canon law (a quote from Irish PM Enda Kenny) is 'vilifying the church'. Bolt completely ignores the fact that many people who identify as Catholic feel that this royal commission is long overdue. He will insist that it's motivated by a bunch of nasty leftist atheist activists. Indeed, today's column argues all of those priest-hating journos are going to take advantage of the situation: Many in the largely anti-clerical media want to use this excuse to smash a church which lectures on modesty, duty, faithfulness and other fun-killers. Words fail me.
|
|
|
Post by chookmustard on Nov 15, 2012 15:58:33 GMT 10
Yesterday Andrew welcomed the Royal Commission into child abuse. Today he's laying out his true feelings. It will be used as a witch-hunt against the Church by it's opponents. Royal Commissions give credence to gossip and scuttlebutt, and the attack on the Church has already begun. "The price of this royal commission could be very high" So it's a Bad Thing is it Andrew? Hi guys, I listened to Andrews effort on 2gb Monday. Him and Steve spoke bout the RC. Steve Price seemed in favour and actually went so far to put Andrew on the spot about if he was for an RC or not. Andrew spent quite a long time faffing about saying things like: "I'm for it but"...... How long will it go for? How wide ranging? Will it merely be a 'history lesson'? What about poor aboriginal children suffering right this minute? What about any poor shmucks who might get dragged into it wrongly? Is it Catholics only? Will,it turn into a Christian/Catholic mud slinging fest for/by Leftists? What if the wrong Commisioner is chosen? What good would it do, in the end? He chose his words carefully, repeating the phrase "I'm very very worried" several times. He constructed his worries by briefly mentioning he was "for it ,but" and then proceeded to,rattle off his misgivings as above. They spoke to a victims advocate who talked down the problems with vexatious claims and talked up the benefits of victims getting their stories told regardless of the passing of time( as some victims take many years to speak out). Callers to the show were supportive also. Andrew came across as excessively worried about all that could go wrong and/or a blatant concern troll. Then his real issue came out. An RC would be used as weapon by secularists (Labor) against Catholics. He had hinted initially that PM Gillard was using this opportunity as a popularity stunt and politically motivated. He mentioned a 'stat' that Christians are far more likely to be charitable and volunteers (why this is important I'm not sure). Why secularists would want to beat up on Catholics also defeats me (consider NSW Right in Labor or the SHop workers union) So, what are we left with? Reading between the lines I can along assume that his beef with a Royal Commision is that it's a tool for Labor to attack Tony Abbott. If Michael Kirby were to head it up his reaction would be interesting. Bolt was insistent that a Catholic must be chosen. Granted, his concern for Aboriginal kids in town camps and remote areas is valid. Was not the Intervention meant to counter this in some way? If so, then he could talk about that instead. The overall feeling I got from Andrew Bolt on Monday night was that he was not really interested in past wrongs and that the RC was close to entirely politically motivated and that Indigenous kids were more important. Chook
|
|
|
Post by chookmustard on Nov 15, 2012 16:26:01 GMT 10
I actually wrote: “ I’m not saying **any of those I’ve named chose to be Aboriginal for anything but the most heartfelt and honest of reasons. I certainly don’t accuse them of opportunism...” Can I sue you for getting your facts wrong? Andrew Bolt Thu 15 Nov 12 (08:34am)" This interesting. Andrew chimes in on his own comment thread on 'Lucky She's Not Me' post. The admirable commenters, Big Ted and bennyg, point out that Andrew got into trouble for being factually wrong and hiding behind the **Merely Formal Exculpatory Device. I'm trying not to laugh at the humor of this as I had a basal cell cancer cut out of my eye today and my face is swollen and hurty!!!!
|
|
|
Post by Matthew Of Canberra on Nov 15, 2012 16:34:41 GMT 10
Re: MFEDs.
If that's all he'd written, there'd have been no case.
|
|
|
Post by Matthew Of Canberra on Nov 15, 2012 16:43:05 GMT 10
Bolta's problem with this royal commission should be obvious enough by now to any sensible person.
And it's inexcusable.
His obsession with "anti catholicism" is bizarre. He occasionally, even if just by accident, hits the mark with his observations on anti-semitism (very occasionally). But I don't think I've seen a single instance of him crying "anti-catholic" which was anything more than running interference for tony abbott or george pell against reasonable criticism.
|
|
|
Post by Sammy Jankis on Nov 15, 2012 16:46:44 GMT 10
A fairly accurate analysis, chookmustard. As with any issue, Bolt's primary concern is how things will pan out in the broader culture wars. In fact, IIRC, he filed his first reaction to the RC under 'Culture Wars' and 'Political things'. That's right - he views the investigation of child abuse as just another front in the culture wars and politics.
I've always noticed that Bolt is extremely sensitive to criticism of the Church. His allegiance to it isn't difficult to explain - the left side of politics isn't generally fond of religion, and isn't scared to criticise its institutions and culture. In a perfect example of 'the enemy of my enemy is my friend', Bolt lurches to the defense of the Church at any opportunity, even happily adopting some of its most questionable claims about being a rare source of morality and good in our society, as if a fear of hell is all that can stop us from descending into anarchy.
It's not that Bolt fears a weakened Church will lead to a more immoral society, it's that he sees the revelation of the Church's horrible misdeeds as ammunition for his enemies on the secular left.
It is interesting though, that while having written several blog posts and a column suggesting that the RC will do more harm than good, he still needs to preface his arguments with "I'm for it...". He's merely covering himself.
|
|
|
Post by chookmustard on Nov 15, 2012 16:57:39 GMT 10
Re: MFEDs. If that's all he'd written, there'd have been no case. Do you mean if all he had written was 'I'm not saying..'?
|
|
|
Post by Matthew Of Canberra on Nov 15, 2012 18:32:50 GMT 10
It that's all he'd written, then the judge wouldn't have had to put those MFEDs in the context of the stuff which actually attracted the legal suit in the first place. I don't think anyone's seriously suggesting that it's the MFEDs that got bolter in the poo. Well ... except maybe bolter himself, and we know where he stands.
It occurred to me a minute ago ... The deference to authority and tradition that bolt currently seems to be exhibiting, and his unwillingness to see the catholic church subjected to a "witch hunt" is exactly the sort of thinking that created the problems that the church is still sorting out today ... and precisely why this royal commission is seen as necessary now.
It must be hard to be on the wrong side of right and wrong so often. I don't think it's deliberate ... I just think he's unlucky.
|
|
|
Post by jack on Nov 15, 2012 19:25:11 GMT 10
"It must be hard to be on the wrong side of right and wrong so often. I don't think it's deliberate ... I just think he's unlucky."
It's just the 'occupational' hazard of being a 'contrarian': One's ideological opponents are not always wrong.
|
|
|
Post by richard on Nov 15, 2012 20:56:03 GMT 10
For those that imagine that the Bolter is a lone contrarian voice conflating the proposed Royal Commission with an attack upon Abbott, dig these excerpts from today’s Australian editorial (http://www.theaustralian.com.au/opinion/editorials/a-time-for-open-confession/story-e6frg71x-1226516925407) titled ‘A time for open confession’:
‘FOR Catholics who wish to remain in a state of grace, the church offers the service of the confessional, whereby the priest conducts an audit of the soul on behalf of the Almighty. Since the penitent is considered to be confessing to God alone, in the presence of his servant, the information is protected under the seal of the confessional.’
‘A priest who tried to withhold information gained in this way from a royal commission could be jailed for contempt.’
As well he should be.
‘For its part, the church takes a pragmatic approach, in so far as its divine obligations will allow. Priests are adept at guiding penitents in the direction of the local police station when needed, quietly and without fanfare.’
Yes, Catholic priests are famous for advising their peers to make admissions of child abuse to the police
‘George Pell has gone further, advising priests not to hear a confession when they suspect that criminal behaviour might be revealed.’
Very useful technique, that. If I didn’t hear it, it didn’t happen. What crime?
This next bit is worth reading in full:
‘The Australian supports the royal commission as a vehicle for exposing institutional failures. If radical secularists want to propose a separate royal commission to consider the abolition of the Catholic Church, they are welcome to put the arguments forward. But this subversive game being played by the usual suspects, with the connivance of the ABC, is a distraction the real victims of abuse could do without. Let us not beat about the bush: their fight with Catholicism is, in part, a proxy war against Tony Abbott. We do not see Catholic Labor MPs, like Don Farrell or South Australian Treasurer Jack Snelling, for instance, put on the spot about complex issues of church against state. Nor would it be acceptable to habitually refer to Julia Gillard as "a confirmed atheist" in the way the Opposition Leader is now customarily called "a devout Catholic". The revelations of child abuse are ugly enough; let us leave politics and sectarianism out of this.’
Jesus wept. The ABC, ‘radical secularists’ and the ALP all part of a ‘proxy war’ against Abbott! Nothing to do with investigating terrible wrongs and taking steps to try to prevent them in the future- it’s a partisan attack from multiple directions on Abbott!
The Australian’s regime change agenda is becoming so transparent that they may as well replace ‘heart of the nation’ with ‘committed to an Abbott led Coalition government’ on their masthead.
The Bolter is just but one of Murdoch’s Sturmtruppen. He just has a bigger and more malleable audience than most.
|
|
|
Post by chookmustard on Nov 15, 2012 21:34:52 GMT 10
Bolt describes himself as very cynical. I imagine he finds it nigh on impossible to separate political maneuvering with doing positive things
|
|