In Australia, a writer mocked one of the judges who condemned Cardinal Pell to jail as 'childless' and a 'fembot'. He said the conviction was part of a long held plan.
It was an opinion piece but some say it broke the law.
No, it should not be a crime.
Of course, since I am an American, my belief is founded on the First Amendment to the Constitution of The United States of America ...
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people to peaceably assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Contempt of court is a crime, so there's that.
Whether Paul Collits is legally in the wrong or not, there is a huge moral question for me about defending a pedophile who has been convicted and lost an appeal. That you had the usual round of muppets like Alan Jones and Tony Abbott supporting Pell throughout the trial is no surprise, but I do wonder when the conservatives will get sick of victim blaming and recognise Pell for the low-down piece of filthy scum that he has certainly always been. Probably never.
Well I was brought up in the Catholic religion. Taught first by Nuns and then Brothers, if you could call it teaching. And I saw first hand evidence of paedophilia although I didn't realize it at the time. So I am not defending the Catholic Church.
As far as George Pell goes I don't know if he is a paedophile or not but in the court case where he was convicted it was appalling. The first trial was abandoned because the jury couldn't reach a verdict. The thing was it was only the word of one man against Pell's word. There were no witnesses and no evidence. The case should have been thrown out of court in five minutes. Maybe Pell deserved what he got but the way it was done made the integrity of our legal system into a joke.
That there were no witnesses is hardly unusual in a sexual assault case. The majority of these cases have no witnesses bar the victim.
You are basically saying it was the victim's word (forgetting the statement of the now-deceased second victim's father) against Pell's, so that makes the trial what, invalid? You're clever, so I know you realise how ridiculous that is.
In many sexual assault cases there may be no witnesses but there is usually evidence and plenty of it.
No tell me what the statement of the deceased alleged second victim's father about his deceased son was all about. I'm keen to know of it, even though as far as a court would be concerned if it is just what the father heard his son say about the alleged crime then it is hearsay and not admissible as evidence.
And yes I'm saying that because it was the alleged victim's word against Pell's word and there were no witnesses and there was no evidence that should have made the trial invalid. Precisely. Otherwise anyone could be convicted of anything based on nothing more than the say so of one person.
Given how shockingly bad Australian judges are they deserve a lot worse than just some verbal criticism.
share