Some idiot tweeted “He is Risen” after George had his appeal upheld by the High Court. Given the allegations against him, I thought that one of the most inappropriate tweets ever.
Of course, some people will be offended by the idea that they think I’m making a joke, but I can’t help other people’s reactions. In actual fact, I know that people rarely laugh at my jokes; they tend to laugh when I tell the absolute truth and then act shocked like I was crossing some line in order to be funny. If I was trying to make a joke I’d say something like we should henceforth call George “Vanilla”, which I find funny but only because I imagine people actually doing it.
Just for the record, satire isn’t funny. It’s savage and outrageous and going that one step too far so that people recognise the horror that passes for moderate proposals.
So I’m not making a joke when I say that both O.J. and George Pell are equally innocent. The fact is that they are in terms of the law because if one isn’t convicted of a crime one is presumed innocent.
The difference between Simpson and Pell is simple: While a jury in the USA found there was insufficient evidence to convict, a jury in Australia – according to the High Court – didn’t behave rationally because they ignored that fact that lots of people testified that his usual practice was to go outside and greet people so he couldn’t have deviated from that practice or else they would have remembered years and years later. Or something like that. I’m not a legal expert and I haven’t read the case in detail so I probably shouldn’t be commenting but I live in the hope that if I can just keep making outrageous comments on things I know nothing about then Rupert will offer me large sums of money to write for one of his papers before he realises that I’ve been writing satire… Perhaps that’s how Andrew Bolt got his job!
And so, at the risk of losing my potential job as one of Murdoch’s Minions, I’d like to add a point of rationality here and I need capitals and HEADLINES but failing that, I’m just going to do it calmly and in bold. Pell, we are told, has been proven innocent and anyone with a legal brain can tell you that’s not true. The case was dismissed by the High Court and consequently, he is entitled to the PRESUMPTION of innocence.
Ok, let’s apply the principal and I’m going for the BOLD type here.
THERE ARE NO ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS BECAUSE NOT ONE PERSON CURRENTLY HELD ON MANUS OR NAURU HAS BEEN CHARGED AND CONVICTED, SO THEY ARE ALL ENTITLED TO THE PRESUMPTION OF INNOCENCE AND ANYONE CALLING THEM AN “ILLEGAL IMMIGRANT” IS DEFAMING THEM BEFORE THEY’VE HAD A TRIAL!!
Or is only special people who are entitled to the rights of law?
[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]
