Should Parliament be Prorogued?

There was a suggestion on ABCs Insiders yesterday Sunday that, due to…

Turnbull government loses plot in worst week of…

"Is 'e an Aussie, Lizzie, is 'e? Is 'e an Aussie, Lizzie,…

Are algorithms ruling your world?

By Ad astra A year or two ago, how many would have known…

Ban The Bra... Mm, Wait, No, Burn The…

Whenever I hear the phrase, "Ban The Burqa", my mind wanders back…

Day to Day Politics: Hanson’s act of hate…

Sunday 20 August 2017 In the hurley burley of last week's decadent politics…

Pauline says she is defending Australian values yet…

It would be ridiculous to draw any sort of equivalence between Pauline…

The Burka Comes to Parliament: Pauline Hanson’s Panto

In few environments could this work. A member of Parliament (barely breathing,…

Diplomacy! What diplomacy?

By Dr George Venturini Heinz Alfred ‘Henry’ Kissinger obtained a Ph.D. at Harvard…

«
»
Facebook

Pell Arrives Back; Turnbull Hitches A Ride And Jeff Spills The (Coffee) Beans!

The ABC news this morning told me that Cardinal Pell had arrived back in Australia to face “historical sexual assault charges”. Now, I’m not commenting on the veracity of those charges because – as many people have pointed out – it would be wrong to deny the man a fair trial. Commenting on trials in progress is something that’s reserved for terrorism offences, but it’s the use of the word “historical” that has me bemused.

historical
hɪˈstɒrɪk(ə)l/Submit
adjective
-of or concerning history or past events.
-belonging to the past.
-(especially of a novel or film) set in the past.

Assuming we can eliminate the idea that the ABC is trying to suggest that this whole thing is a novel or film, we are left with two definitions both of which suggest that these are charges concerned with events that happened in the past.

Which is, of course, only fair because I’m sure we’d all have concerns if anyone was being charged with events that were allegedly happening in the future.

So, given anyone with half a brain and even members of the right faction of Turnbull’s government would presume that these were charges relating to things that have happened in the past, one wonders why the ABC feels it necessary to emphasise the “historical” nature of the events.

Do we get that with any other news?

“Youths charged with causing historical damage at detention centre”
“Liberals announce historical policy on marriage equality”
“Man charged with historical murder”
“Turnbull gets historical ride with Donald Trump”

Which reminds me, I meant to spend this morning writing about the great example Turnbull has set for saving money.Yep, he’s learned from Bronwyn’s infamous helicopter ride, and not only did he hitch a ride with Donald Trump, but he managed to get Macron to take him in the French plane by suggesting that because of the parlous position of Australia’s finances, both he and Lucy would be walking unless they could raise bus fare by passing round the hat, at which point the French president told him that there was room for an extra couple of passengers so long as he didn’t tell the story about how his good mate Donald gave him a lift from the hotel because everyone at the G20 had heard it at least twice.

As for his time in “the Beast” (which is the nickname for the US President’s car and not some strange initiation ritual a la David Cameron), Malcolm tells us that it was a great opportunity for some private conversation. Of course, given the famous “private conversation” where Donald was caught on tape giving his advice on “pussy” grabbing, one wonders whether it’s a wise move to accept a lift from from the Trumpeter. However, I do appreciate that the journey from the hotel to the venue would be plenty of time for both men to share all they know and to talk about the principles that they both hold dear.

But I digress… I was speculating about the use of the word “historical”.

I wanted to make it clear that I didn’t see it as an attempt by the ABC to make the charges seem less significant. Just as I didn’t mean to suggest that Miranda Devine’s suggestion that the police had made the whole thing up to distract us from the fact that there are crimes being committed as we speak, and they’re failing to catch and charge people with these historical crimes. Similarly, Andrew Bolt’s defence of George as a top bloke who historically did a lot of good historical things like launch the historical Melbourne Response just because someone needed to do something.

Jeff Kennett had a few words to say about the Melbourne Response in his column, by the way. According to Jeff:

“When evidence of pedophilia within the Catholic Church was getting increasing publicity in the mid-1990s, I invited the then archbishop Pell to my office for a coffee. It might be said that two robust individuals had a robust discussion. I suggested to the archbishop that it would be advisable if, as head of the Catholic Church in Victoria, he addressed the charges of pedophilia in a public and vigorous way.

“If not, I told him, the state of Victoria would. I did not want to take that action because I thought the church should address its behaviour and assist those it had abused, and it was not an area I felt comfortable that politicians could address. Fortunately, Pell accepted my invitation, went away and delivered what was called the Melbourne Response.

“Whether those initiatives were as complete as required, I do not know. But Pell was the first leader of any church or organisation confronted by pedophilia charges to act and he did so quickly and firmly. George Pell is innocent until found guilty of any offence. Until then he has my support and friendship.”

Now one of my nasty left-wing friends – and let’s be clear here, as Andrew Bolt tells us all left-wing people are nasty – had the temerity to suggest that the sentence: “It might be said that two robust individuals had a robust discussion” suggests that the Melbourne Response wasn’t something that George was all that keen on and that it was only with pressure from Kennett that he instituted something.

However, I imagine that the conversation was robust because they were both such robust characters.

“George, I’ve invited you here for coffee because I want to discuss your response to the accusations!”
“Jeff, I want to discuss my response!”
“Good, you do that!”
“I will!”
“SO WILL I!”
“I intend to respond strongly.”
“OK, BUT I THINK YOU SHOULD RESPOND ROBUSTLY.”
“I ALWAYS respond ROBUSTLY!”
“Great! Now, MILK?”
“PLEASE!”
“Sugar?”
“Definitely not!”

Or something like that. Anyway, what does it matter whose idea it was. It’s all historical.


8 comments

  1. helvityni

    One of your best, Rossleigh, I’m laughing almost hysterically with all this historical stuff, and that’s something coming from someone whose least favourite subject at school was history.

    It’s also understandable that ABC likes the word historical; they have shown us many a costume drama over years, but of course SBS takes it to another level; there’s always someone digging bones on some forgotten field, they are also keen on docos of Hitler and Stalin. or other celebrities from the past.

  2. Noel

    it was the Melbourne Police who said the charges were historical…meaning the happened over thirty years ago.

  3. paulwalter

    WILL be “historic”, if he gets canned for his alleged sins.

  4. lawrencewinder

    Hmm ….Kennett grandstanding again? It seems that Pell-Pot’s “Melbourne Response” was a unilateral decision which riled more senior churchmen who had already started working toward a justice and compensation plan for abuse victims. He gazumped their efforts and to show some semblance of unity they followed his lead which was to be quite mean and punitive..

  5. Pilgrim

    Lawrencewinder re Pell’s Melbourne Response. The Australian Catholic Bishops had already embarked on a joint response, to which Pell of course had been privy. They were a long way down the track when Pell emerged with his Melbourne version which was, as you say, mean and punitive, with a major focus on reducing financial losses to the Church. The Towards Healing protocol, released later by all the bishops, was significantly more generous towards abuse victims. The claim made by Pell’s supporters that he was first to address the issue keeps being repeated, but is inaccurate. He simply promoted himself by releasing his version first, letting down his colleagues who had been working cooperatively for a long time.

  6. margcal

    Are not “historic cases” those cases which were beyond the statute of limitations until the statute was repealed?
    It’s not only the ABC or Vic Police who use the term.

  7. @RosemaryJ36

    I think the stress on the historical is to prepare us for the fact that, even if he is found guilty, he will get a light sentence as it all happened a long time ago and he has been punished enough by all the publicity – he being a holy man, and all.

  8. Freethinker

    Just to make your blood boil, and on the same subject please read this:
    Decades of sexual abuse reported in choir once led by retired pope Benedict’s brother
    http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/germany-domspatzen-choir-sexual-abuse-1.4210026
    quote:
    At least 547 members of a prestigious Catholic boys’ choir in Germany were physically or sexually abused between 1945 and 1992, according to a report released Tuesday.

Leave a Reply

Return to home page
Scroll Up
%d bloggers like this: