Ok, I’m going to stick by my principles here, because if you don’t stick by your principles, what are you? In the end, you’re just another Malcolm Turnbull…
All right, I know that some of you are going to point out that Malcolm’s principles have always been pretty fluid, but that’s part of my point.
George Pell is innocent until proven guilty…
We need to remember that.
Yes, I know that some of you will be ready to condemn him simply because you’d like it to be true because you hate the man, but like everyone, he’s entitled to be considered innocent until the evidence has been considered by a court of law and a jury of his peers has considered it and found him guilty. And if there isn’t enough evidence then he won’t even have to face trial.
And yes, I know that some of you will think that it’s a big conspiracy if he doesn’t go to trial, but Pell should be treated like anybody else, with the same right to a fair trial.
After all, the man himself said that the allegations were “wrong and untrue”… Which sort of confuses me a bit, because I’m trying to consider a way in which the allegations could be “right and untrue” or “wrong but true”.
Now, having said all that, I can’t help but wonder about his complaint that the ABC was conducting a “smear campaign” against him. They’ve reported the charges. Maybe it could be argued that they shouldn’t have been given the information that Pell was under investigation by the police – assuming that it was the police, which the ABC deny – but what should a media organisation do when given such information about a public figure? After confirming its accuracy, surely they’d think that the public has a right to know. If the ABC were to go down the other path, and not report it, surely they could be accused of taking part in a cover-up. I mean, how would our new senator, Derryn Hinch react if he were to hear of possible charges that hadn’t been made public? Given his propensity to get into trouble for contempt of court, can you imagine what Hinch might say under parliamentary privilege.
Of course, the suggestion that if there were any substance to the allegations, then they would have been aired at the Royal Commission is wrong, for the simple reason that the focus of the Commission was looking at the role of institutions in the abuse of children. There is no suggestion that this was anything other than the actions of one individual. But again, I emphasise. Pell is entitled to due process.
So, to me, it’s all quite clear.
Unfortunately it doesn’t seem so clear to some of George’s mates. While George is being the subject of a witch-hunt and we should all have a good lie down, it seems that it’s quite clear that the ABC and the police are guilty of wrong-doing. Take Greg Craven, Vice-Chancellor at the Australian Catholic University. He tells us:
“It’s a big story about the chronic abuse of state power from the Victoria Police and the willing abetting of the abuse of that power, very sadly by our national broadcaster the ABC!”
Yep, it seems that Victoria Police can be found guilty before even an investigation, let alone a trial, while the ABC is an accomplice aiding and abetting that abuse of state power. It’s not clear whether Mr Craven thinks it was the leak or the investigation that was the “abuse of power”. After all, a leak could have come from one officer, so it’s hard to hold the entire Victorian Police Force responsible. In fact, the leak may have even come from one of the victims… or rather, alleged victims. It seems therefore strange to call it “a chronic abuse of state power”. But then maybe Mr Craven is upset at the way the idea of investigating Pell, who after all, is a priest and if you can’t trust a priest, then…
And apparently, Andrew Bolt too, believes that only George Pell should have the presumption of innocence, because it was clearly leaked :
“This strikes me as a grotesque abuse of power by the Victoria Police particularly, exploiting the bloated, biased and over-mighty ABC. This is state power used to crush Catholics.
“The ABC claims police were not the source of the story, but it beggars belief that the information could have got out without police releasing it to an intermediary.”
I don’t remember such concern from Mr Bolt when there were reports about the investigations into Julia Gillard’s actions as a young lawyer sometime during the previous century. I don’t remember any suggestions that these were a smear or an abuse of power, long before they were the subject of questions at a Royal Commission
So, you need to ask yourself the question that neither Craven or Bolt seemed to have asked themselves: Do I believe in due process all the time, or only when I like the person being accused?
[textblock style=”7″]
Like what we do at The AIMN?
You’ll like it even more knowing that your donation will help us to keep up the good fight.
Chuck in a few bucks and see just how far it goes!
Your contribution to help with the running costs of this site will be gratefully accepted.
You can donate through PayPal or credit card via the button below, or donate via bank transfer: BSB: 062500; A/c no: 10495969
[/textblock]
