"He only had vanilla sex with non consenting children, your honour."

[SomeRandom]

Okay, my faith in the Parliament of our country kind of wavered throughout that dumb SSM postal vote debacle. I was never an active voter, per se. Just showed up to avoid a fine and grab a free snag sizzle. But I can't fathom how anyone, from either side, can stomach our polies following the Cardinal Pell scandal.
Liberals (Australianese for Conservatives) were all about "thinking of the poor children" when campaigning for the No side during the SSM debate. Now all of sudden giving their support and glowing character recommendations for disgraced Cardinal Pell,a convicted child sex offender.
Labour, well to be fair, have stayed away from the drama. But they're just so spineless. Backed down during the SSM vote, refuse to call out their opponents during this scandal. Who the hell am I even supposed to vote for? Not that I actually voted before, but I used to be a cautiously optimistic Labour supporter, but still.

I've been seeing memes all week mocking the disgusting hypocrisy of the supposed Christian Liberals. So this is more so a rant than a discussion, but if you want we can make it a party.
I could maybe understand if they were shocked due to knowing the guy. Maybe said something like, wow, I thought I knew the guy. Clearly has some demons in the closet. (heh) But to go out of their way to try to defend his character and call this a bad day for the Catholic Church, all I have to say to the Liberals now is, Oh won't somebody please think about the children!?
Blech.

https://www.smh.com.au/politics/fed...rors-of-judgment-on-pell-20190228-p510t5.html
Tony Abbott haunted by praise for George Pell
Abbott Doubles Down On Conservative Vote And Says He'll Knight George Pell If He Ever Wins Power Again
Why Senior Liberals Are Disputing George Pell's Conviction
Pell has been taken down, now the internet is coming for his supporters
(For reference, I did try to link a media watchdog story apparently saying Ray Hadley was in the wrong for condemning Abbot and Howard, but it's behind a paywall. Also be aware the Project is very left leaning.)

Oh and for those wondering about the title. It's from the defense given at Pell's trial by his own lawyer and has since become something of a running gag/meme.
I quote Pell's defense attorney, “No more than a plain vanilla sexual penetration case where the child is not actively participating.” Because at least it wasn't something sinful or deviant, like consensual homo sex, amirite?

 

[Augustus]

Abbott Doubles Down On Conservative Vote And Says He'll Knight George Pell If He Ever Wins Power Again

If anyone would like a brief comedic primer on quite how much of a moron former PM Tony Abbot is:

 

[Kangaroo Feathers]

Okay, my faith in the Parliament of our country kind of wavered throughout that dumb SSM postal vote debacle. I was never an active voter, per se. Just showed up to avoid a fine and grab a free snag sizzle. But I can't fathom how anyone, from either side, can stomach our polies following the Cardinal Pell scandal.
Liberals (Australianese for Conservatives) were all about "thinking of the poor children" when campaigning for the No side during the SSM debate. Now all of sudden giving their support and glowing character recommendations for disgraced Cardinal Pell,a convicted child sex offender.
Labour, well to be fair, have stayed away from the drama. But they're just so spineless. Backed down during the SSM vote, refuse to call out their opponents during this scandal. Who the hell am I even supposed to vote for? Not that I actually voted before, but I used to be a cautiously optimistic Labour supporter, but still.

I've been seeing memes all week mocking the disgusting hypocrisy of the supposed Christian Liberals. So this is more so a rant than a discussion, but if you want we can make it a party.
I could maybe understand if they were shocked due to knowing the guy. Maybe said something like, wow, I thought I knew the guy. Clearly has some demons in the closet. (heh) But to go out of their way to try to defend his character and call this a bad day for the Catholic Church, all I have to say to the Liberals now is, Oh won't somebody please think about the children!?
Blech.

https://www.smh.com.au/politics/fed...rors-of-judgment-on-pell-20190228-p510t5.html
Tony Abbott haunted by praise for George Pell
Abbott Doubles Down On Conservative Vote And Says He'll Knight George Pell If He Ever Wins Power Again
Why Senior Liberals Are Disputing George Pell's Conviction
Pell has been taken down, now the internet is coming for his supporters
(For reference, I did try to link a media watchdog story apparently saying Ray Hadley was in the wrong for condemning Abbot and Howard, but it's behind a paywall. Also be aware the Project is very left leaning.)

Oh and for those wondering about the title. It's from the defense given at Pell's trial by his own lawyer and has since become something of a running gag/meme.
I quote Pell's defense attorney, “No more than a plain vanilla sexual penetration case where the child is not actively participating.” Because at least it wasn't something sinful or deviant, like consensual homo sex, amirite?

Disenchanted as I am with our justice system currently, even assuming (for the sake of argument) that Pell is innocent, that was still a remarkably dumb phrasing for the lawyer to use.

 

[danieldemol]

Labour supported Same Sex Marriage during the plebiscite and does support it.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

Labour supported Same Sex Marriage during the plebiscite and does support it.

They were weak throughout. They did nothing when they were in power on the same issue. Only when they knew which way the wind was blowing did they pick a side. That's not leadership or vision.

 

[SomeRandom]

Disenchanted as I am with our justice system currently, even assuming (for the sake of argument) that Pell is innocent, that was still a remarkably dumb phrasing for the lawyer to use.

I know right? It's like appearing in court for theft and being all "I only took the items without the store's permission."

 

[danieldemol]

They were weak throughout. They did nothing when they were in power on the same issue. Only when they knew which way the wind was blowing did they pick a side. That's not leadership or vision.

Still if you want SSM laws changed for equality surely labour is the best bet? You could also vote for the Greens but I think it unlikely they have the popular support.

 

[SomeRandom]

Labour supported Same Sex Marriage during the plebiscite and does support it.

But they were weak. They never took a firm stand nor defend it on it's own merits until they realized they had the right amount of public support. And they still disgustingly went along with the plebiscite, regardless of its questionable ethics.

 

[David T]

Okay, my faith in the Parliament of our country kind of wavered throughout that dumb SSM postal vote debacle. I was never an active voter, per se. Just showed up to avoid a fine and grab a free snag sizzle. But I can't fathom how anyone, from either side, can stomach our polies following the Cardinal Pell scandal.
Liberals (Australianese for Conservatives) were all about "thinking of the poor children" when campaigning for the No side during the SSM debate. Now all of sudden giving their support and glowing character recommendations for disgraced Cardinal Pell,a convicted child sex offender.
Labour, well to be fair, have stayed away from the drama. But they're just so spineless. Backed down during the SSM vote, refuse to call out their opponents during this scandal. Who the hell am I even supposed to vote for? Not that I actually voted before, but I used to be a cautiously optimistic Labour supporter, but still.

I've been seeing memes all week mocking the disgusting hypocrisy of the supposed Christian Liberals. So this is more so a rant than a discussion, but if you want we can make it a party.
I could maybe understand if they were shocked due to knowing the guy. Maybe said something like, wow, I thought I knew the guy. Clearly has some demons in the closet. (heh) But to go out of their way to try to defend his character and call this a bad day for the Catholic Church, all I have to say to the Liberals now is, Oh won't somebody please think about the children!?
Blech.

https://www.smh.com.au/politics/fed...rors-of-judgment-on-pell-20190228-p510t5.html
Tony Abbott haunted by praise for George Pell
Abbott Doubles Down On Conservative Vote And Says He'll Knight George Pell If He Ever Wins Power Again
Why Senior Liberals Are Disputing George Pell's Conviction
Pell has been taken down, now the internet is coming for his supporters
(For reference, I did try to link a media watchdog story apparently saying Ray Hadley was in the wrong for condemning Abbot and Howard, but it's behind a paywall. Also be aware the Project is very left leaning.)

Oh and for those wondering about the title. It's from the defense given at Pell's trial by his own lawyer and has since become something of a running gag/meme.
I quote Pell's defense attorney, “No more than a plain vanilla sexual penetration case where the child is not actively participating.” Because at least it wasn't something sinful or deviant, like consensual homo sex, amirite?

oh goodie I can now say yeah the United States may be screwy but hey check out the Aussies.

 

[Kangaroo Feathers]

Labour supported Same Sex Marriage during the plebiscite and does support it.

...so?

 

[lewisnotmiller]

Still if you want SSM laws changed for equality surely labour is the best bet? You could also vote for the Greens but I think it unlikely they have the popular support.

Agreed. But I am actually not someone who throws up their hands and sees all politicians as the same. I try to vote on issues. That Labour finally gave half-hearted support to SSM, after doing so when in power...not showing any sort of social leadership in the way our smaller neighbours over the ditch have...to call it disappointing to me is an understatement.

The very fact that there was a plebiscite is ridiculous, time consuming and shows a complete lack of leadership.

 

[SomeRandom]

Agreed. But I am actually not someone who throws up their hands and sees all politicians as the same. I try to vote on issues. That Labour finally gave half-hearted support to SSM, after not doing so when in power...not showing any sort of social leadership in the way our smaller neighbours over the ditch have...to call it disappointing to me is an understatement.

The very fact that there was a plebiscite is ridiculous, time consuming and shows a complete lack of leadership.

Yes. This exactly!
Socially I’d fit in well with Labour, but they don’t actually fight. So where are those left of Liberal supposed to turn to?

 

[Revoltingest]

I know right? It's like appearing in court for theft and being all "I only took the items without the store's permission."

In Ameristan, we'd phrase it differently....
"Your honor, I didn't steal that car. I just had undocumented possession."

 

[SomeRandom]

In Ameristan, we'd phrase it differently....
"Your honor, I didn't steal that car. I just had undocumented possession."

That at least has some plausible deniability.

 

[GoodbyeDave]

It's not just Australian politicians. The British weekly Catholic Herald is currently running articles (1) condemning the Catholic Chruch for not doing enough about child abuse and (2) claiming that Pell is the victim of a witch-hunt!

 

[Glaurung]

Oh and for those wondering about the title. It's from the defense given at Pell's trial by his own lawyer and has since become something of a running gag/meme.
I quote Pell's defense attorney, “No more than a plain vanilla sexual penetration case where the child is not actively participating.” Because at least it wasn't something sinful or deviant, like consensual homo sex, amirite?

Some context.

As far as I understand, because Pell has been found guilty (pending the appeal) his lawyers are obligated to assume the validity of the verdict. Thus any further defense attempted by Pell's lawyers must by law assume Pell's guilt. It does not mean his defense actually believes that he is guilty in reality, nor is it an admission of guilt on Pell's part. As perverse as the statement was it was not quite the admission people think it was.

 

[SomeRandom]

Some context.

As far as I understand, because Pell has been found guilty (pending the appeal) his lawyers are obligated to assume the validity of the verdict. Thus any further defense attempted by Pell's lawyers must by law assume Pell's guilt. It does not mean his defense actually believes that he is guilty in reality, nor is it an admission of guilt on Pell's part. As perverse as the statement was it was not quite the admission people think it was.

I know why the lawyer had to use some “interesting phrasing” during the scenario. But still.
He could have phrased it in a way that couldn’t be mistaken for a NAMBLA slogan.

 

[Glaurung]

claiming that Pell is the victim of a witch-hunt!

There is justification to think that. The man has been convicted on the uncorroborated testimony of a single person. That a fully vested bishop could rape two boys in a cathedral sacristy immediately after Mass and and not have been noticed is hard to uncritically accept. Even at my little church the sacristy is a busy place with people coming and going as things are set up or put away. As an altar server I speak from experience in that trying to get changed without half the congregation walking in on you is a challenge at times. So while I am not going to say it is impossible, the surface improbabilities are many and manifest.

On the one hand, if he has really done what he has been accused of doing then of course I want him in prison like anyone else would be for the same crime. On the other, I question whether it is possible for a man in his position to ever get a fair trial. It is hard because out of four possibilities two of them are gut wrenching.

1. He's guilty and losses the appeal. Justice is served.
2. He's guilty but wins the appeal. A rapist goes free.
3. He's innocent and losses the appeal. An innocent man convicted by the media and circumstance spends the rest of his life in prison.
4. He's innocent and wins the appeal. He'll go free but be reviled by a public utterly convinced of his guilt based on nothing more than gut feeling and the claim of a single person.