So how will things now change?

Obviously not guilty from the start. And as sinister as the entire episode has been, possibly the most sinister part is that one’s political beliefs are an almost perfect dye marker for how one receives the decision. For the left, it is symbolism alone that matters. On the right, it is that justice has finally been done. The left will attack you for your class membership in whatever way they wish to define you. There are no individual rights nor individual responsibility. This is the way of the left who are totalitarian through and through.

The left are a gang of ideological thugs who roam in packs. To the left, paedophilia is wrong, George Pell was accused of paedophilia, George Pell is a Catholic archbishop, therefore George Pell was guilty, irrespective of the virtual impossibility of his being actually guilty of the crime. It is the justice of the accusation, the Lubyanka, the show trial and bullet to the head. Not quite there yet, but they have effectively ruined Pell’s career, and have provided an exemplary lesson for anyone who falls outside the permitted norms as laid down by the left.

If this has been a learning experience, it is a learning experience for us. This is the Press Release from Daniel Andrews. Try finding an ounce of remorse in this meaningless statement:

I make no comment about today’s High Court decision. But I have a message for every single victim and survivor of child sex abuse: I see you. I hear you. I believe you.

And this is the only comment I can find from the Prime Minister, and there was no press release I could turn up.

The decision of the ‘highest court in the land must be respected’.

This was a handy dandy comment that could have been written a week ago. Works whichever way the decsion might have gone. As vacuous a form of words as could possibly have been constructed.

What should change? The ABC should have its charter revised so that it can only present cultural forms of entertainment. It should be forbidden to present news and political commentary.

And what will be changed? Nothing.

Morrison seems to take his lead in almost everything from Daniel Andrews, whether this decision in the High Court or in how to deal with the Corona Virus. What Morrison personally believes about anything political I really could not say.

This entry was posted in Australian Story. Bookmark the permalink.

43 Responses to So how will things now change?

  1. Tim Neilson

    The ABC should have its charter revised so that it can only present cultural forms of entertainment. It should be forbidden to present news and political commentary.

    Nice idea but it wouldn’t work.

    See ABC “comedy”.

    Remember Jon Stewart’s “Daily Show” in the US? It used to go flat stick fraudulent on political issues and when they were called out they said it doesn’t matter because it’s not a news show, only “comedy”.

  2. Boambee John

    Remember Jon Stewart’s “Daily Show” in the US? It used to go flat stick fraudulent on political issues and when they were called out they said it doesn’t matter because it’s not a news show, only “comedy”.

    And Q&A is in Their ABC’s entertainment division, not news and current affairs?

  3. Leo G

    I make no comment about today’s High Court decision. But I have a message for every single victim and survivor of child sex abuse: I see you. I hear you. I believe you.

    Message discrimination? It seems to me George Pell is now a victim and survivor of child sex abuse committed by others on others, but Dan Andrews won’t see him, won’t hear him, won’t believe him.

  4. Nothing will change at their ABC.

    Nothing induces more anger in potential Labor-Lite voters.

    It’s the best campaigning tool they have, and taxpayers fund it.

  5. To the left, paedophilia is wrong…

    That is incorrect. There are many examples of where the Left fully supports paedophilia; it only depends on who is doing it.

  6. nb

    ‘I make no comment about today’s High Court decision. But I have a message for every single victim and survivor of child sex abuse: I see you. I hear you. I believe you.’
    The genius of Andrews pitted against seven High Court judges. Really, Lilliput.
    Gulliver’s ship (the Antelope) was bound for the East Indies when it was caught in “a violent storm to the northwest of Van Diemen’s Land”. Swift knew!

  7. I think we need to have a oxymoron competition. A condition is that the ABC must be included in the oxymoron. Some suggestions:
    Unbiased ABC,
    Truthful ABC.

    Put your minds to it, I am sure we can come up with a lot more.

  8. bollux

    Morrison believes in throwing away other peoples money hadn’t you heard. I got $750 so there. Not sure what for but hey, I’m just a pleb.

  9. Rob MW

    The decision of the ‘highest court in the land must be respected’.

    Steve – to be a little bit fair to Morrison, Crown Law (C’wth) are most likely taking a look at the consequences of the HCA’s decision probably with the view that some amendments might be/will be needed to (at least) the Evidence Act(s) of 1905 & 1995 and it would be improper for him to make much of a comment. S109 of the Constitution forces any amendments that the C’wth makes onto the States Evidence Acts. Judges, in their relevant jurisdictions most likely make their own ‘Rules of Court’ so I guess those rules will have to be looked at.

    Andrews on the other hand, well he can go fuck himself.

  10. George

    I will never vote Liberal again

  11. Iampeter

    For the left, it is symbolism alone that matters. On the right, it is that justice has finally been done.

    Um…no.
    Firstly, there is no faction in this issue that is representative of “the right.” Just religious leftists vs secular leftists.
    Secondly, all the leftists factions involved conducted themselves indistinguishably, except conservatives just lack the self awareness of other leftists.

    For example:

    There are no individual rights nor individual responsibility. This is the way of the left who are totalitarian through and through.

    But you don’t support individual rights, neither does the conservative movement in general.
    I’d call it “a gang of ideological thugs who roam in packs” but conservatives are not ideological and don’t have any ideas.

  12. Cynic of Ayr

    George.
    I will never vote Liberal again
    Why?

  13. Terry

    ‘The ABC should have its charter revised’…nay, revoked

    The ABC is not reformable. It is a putrid cesspit of malevolent Leftardism. A dark abyss into which too many tax dollars are flushed and only untreated effluent returns.

    The ABC must be dissolved as a statutory authority.

    In its place, the Federal Government can initiate tenders for very specific and limited areas of market failure AND only for as long as that market failure continues to exist (a finite timeframe subject to oversight and renewal).

    * A contract for the broadcast of parliament and parliamentary committees;
    * A contract for emergency broadcasting (perhaps rebroadcast over the “Channel 2” frequencies by a commercial operator or combination of operators to fulfill a tender); and
    * Very few other functions.

    There would be no “talent”/”Personalities” required, no board, no bloated administration, no staff collective, and no bottomless tax-sinkhole.

  14. Bronson

    F%6k off yam you supercilious ‘banker’! You’ve got to have two because nobody could br that silly playing with just one.

  15. MPH

    Morrison is the symptom of the LINO* system. Blame the system not him.

    Liberal In Name Only which is why they are cheap, nasty amd get walked all over.

  16. Cynic of Ayr

    The stupid comment by the ABC’s Cassidy was, “Pell was not found to be innocent.” (The man is a moron.)
    NO ONE is ever found “innocent.” They are found “Not guilty.”
    That is the declaration by the Jury and/or Judges(s).
    Even with an “open and shut case” such as the accused was in Japan having tea with Emperor, at the exact same time the murder was committed in Germany, he is only declared “Not Guilty”
    Why? I dunno. Maybe it is just arse covering by the Legal System, who are experts at this particular skill. Maybe “Innocent” is too binding. Like, it might get in the way of further money earning proceedings.
    Maybe it just means, “We know you’re guilty, we just can’t prove it.”
    Perhaps this is the Case with Cardinal Pell. I don’t personally think it is. I believer the evidence is just too much in Pell’s favour, to outweigh the evidence of one man’s coached 20 year old memories.
    Was the man’s memories coached? I dunno, but I believe the Sun will be up again in the morning.

  17. WDYSIA

    St Patrick’s vandalised and of course people left stuff on the gates of the monastery.

  18. Alan

    Sinclair has already discovered the problem: The ABC Charter is not law.
    ABC Act 1983 (Cth) s 6(4) explicitly excludes Court enforcement.
    And the most interesting part? The Act had those limiting provisions from the moment it was assented (1 June 1983) and commenced (1 July 1983) – look at the endnotes.

    This limitation was confirmed by the High Court in Abebe v Commonwealth [1999] HCA 14:

    GLEESON CJ and McHUGH J at [31] (discussing Court jurisdiction): “If there is no legal remedy for a “wrong”, there can be no “matter”. A legally enforceable remedy is as essential to the existence of a “matter” as the right, duty or liability which gives rise to the remedy. Without the right to bring a curial proceeding, there can be no “matter”. If a person breaches a legal duty which is unenforceable in a court of justice, there can be no “matter”.”

    They are completely protected. Perhaps we should ask our Liberal politicians why they have done nothing since 1983 to amend these limiting provisions.

  19. candy

    It would be a different kettle of fish if someone made a sexual abuse allegation against Dan Andrews.

    There would be no seeing, hearing or believing then.

  20. Iampeter

    There would be no seeing, hearing or believing then.

    You mean exactly what conservatives have tried to do with the allegations against Pell?

  21. candy

    You mean exactly what conservatives have tried to do with the allegations against Pell?

    I mean it would not even be a news story anywhere. It would be completely covered up, hushed up, never to be heard.
    Like Bill Shorten’s issue. Rarely anyone knows that, because it was hushed almost completely apart from a dicey web site or something and some bits and pieces – but in the general populace, no-one much knows at all, the hushing has been that good.

  22. Terry

    @Cynic of Ayr
    ‘NO ONE is ever found “innocent.” They are found “Not guilty.”’
    ‘Why?’
    …because “innocent” is one’s natural state (presumed innocent).
    One cannot be found innocent. They ARE innocent UNTIL they are proven guilty (beyond a reasonable doubt).
    If guilt is not proven (beyond a reasonable doubt), then they are not guilty (and they retain their state of innocence).

    That some pseudo-intellectuals are attempting to split-hairs over what is fundamentally a pretty simple concept, exposes (beyond a reasonable doubt) the abject destruction of any remaining pretense of honour, decency, fairness or rationality “The Left” might have been trying to cling to.

    They are the veritable “busted flush”. Beyond redemption. They are simply not playing the same game as normal society. They mean for the total destruction of our civilisation and no [mis]behaviour is beneath them in order to achieve it.

    These are not simply people with which there is disagreement. These are bad actors, operating in bad faith, and the very antithesis of everything western civilisation has been founded upon.

  23. Terry

    “our Liberal politicians”

    There are some? I know plenty have it on their business card…

  24. Grandma

    If I say Daniel Andrews abused me, without offering any credible evidence, will he believe me? Why not? Isn’t my word as good as any other troubled fabulist?

  25. nfw

    Our PM vacuous? High praise indeed. I move quickly through the “let’s make a buck out of this by having advertising in our Wuhan Virus flu updates instead of actually providing a public service ad free” (phew) TV stations so I don’t have to listen to “the experts” who know nothing destroying our country I hope I might see Churchill come to save us. Nope, all I see is Scott Morrison, ad man extraordinaire. Don’t forget Morrison was “the brains” behind that awful “Where the bloody hell are you?” cringe worthy ad. It shows.

  26. Tintarella di Luna

    The Australian’s editorial about the Pell matters has comments – I made several comments over the last hour — still not published but the last just a few minutes ago has already been rejected — it was this: The justice system in Victoria has been debased by this malicious travesty now I wonder why?

  27. Ian of Brisbane

    Morrison never misses an opportunity to disappoint.

  28. Geriatric Mayfly

    If I say Daniel Andrews abused me, without offering any credible evidence, will he believe me? Why not? Isn’t my word as good as any other troubled fabulist?

    Seems to be a Victorian thing. Recall that kid knocked off his bike. Wasn’t me at the wheel says Dan. We believe you says Plod.

  29. Lee

    That is incorrect. There are many examples of where the Left fully supports paedophilia; it only depends on who is doing it.

    They have shown almost no interest for it in the Aboriginal community and a certain other religious community.
    In fact, if you dare to bring it up as happening in the Aboriginal community you may be called a “racist.”

  30. Roger

    To the left, paedophilia is wrong

    Only if engaged in by Christian clergy.

    The Left actually have no absolute moral principles.

  31. Alan

    Curiouser and Curiouser. As an addendum to my post above …
    Take a closer look at the Abebe case at para [31], and note the Judicial comments drawing in a prior case actually involving the ABC: ABC v Redmore, where they then refer to “s 8(3)”. Section 8.
    Section 8 is not the section that establishes the “Charter”.
    Section 8 establishes the duties of *the Board*.
    The ABC Board – where’s their liability? Limited by that last sub-section 8(3).
    And the ABC Managing Director? Liability Limited by section 10(2)-(3).

    But don’t forget our SBS – established by the Special Broadcasting Service Act 1991 (Cth)
    Now peruse sections 6(4), 10(2), and 15(2)-(3). A carbon copy of the ABC Act limitations.

    And from that, I conclude this was definitely not an “oversight”.

  32. Old Lefty

    Bemused is right. The left does not think the behaviour in question is wrong, except when it can cynically exploit it against ideological enemies. The roll call of supporters from the 50s to the 80s is like the reading list in a postmodern ‘university’: Kinsey, Foucault, Cohn-Bendit (founder of the Green movement), RD Laing. At the journo/activist level, there’s Peter Tatchell, Harriet Harman, Richard andejis p3derast mates Whitlam’s ABC chairman Richard Downing, Bob Ellis, Dorothy Hewitt, and the host of Australians documented in Alan Lansdown’s article in Quadrant in September 1984. It is not as if they have really changed their tune. They are just waiting out the destruction of the traditional sources of morality before resuming their agenda – reducing the age of consent to 12 will be just a start. It is no accident that the ABC and former Fairfax hardly ever report on the crimes of anyone but the clergy.

  33. max

    Gary North:

    The biblical legal foundation of the concept of civil rights rests on a more fundamental concept: unlawful trespass. What belongs to God cannot lawfully be stolen or misused. What belongs to God’s agent, man, also cannot be lawfully stolen or misused. The primary form of ownership is ownership of one’s own name.

    Civil rights in a society must begin with the blasphemy law. If God’s name and reputation are not protected by law, then no man’s name and reputation will be protected for very long. A man’s name and reputation are more important than his physical property.

    The name of God must be defended. So must the name of man. Thus, an attack on a person’s good name is a crime, but only because an attack on God’s name is a more serious crime.

    If God’s rights are not defended by the civil order, then no one’s rights are safe. When a man’s good name can be publicly tarnished, his purse is not safe either. That the libel laws should have been weakened in this, the century of massive taxation, compulsory wealth redistribution, and political pluralism, should come as no surprise. The present age of legislated envy began with an attack on the authority of God during the French Revolution. Envy has spread to every institution, including even the State. If God’s name is not safe from public vilification, then nothing is safe.

  34. Rob MW

    @ Alan: (I think you barking up the wrong tree)

    “Thus began the lone fight of Mr Salim, which culminated in Australian legal history in August 2008 when the Government capitulated, awarded him a judgement and paid him $55 million dollars.”

    Source

  35. Castle Wolfenstein

    Thankfully appeals to the Privy Council were abolished in 1975. Had that not happened the ABC might have been been able to keep blowing.

    There are some savings to be found in the next budget.

  36. Alan

    Sorry Rob, I’m lost as to what you mean.
    Could you reference a High Court case and paragraph specifically overruling ABC powers or limitations?
    Sinclair may need to know as well.

  37. Rob MW

    Alan – you will note that the Salim case & the other one both surrounded what the public servants did to Pan Pharmacuticals. Salim, and seperatly Pan’s customers brought separate Torts to the Federal Court against the particular individuals using the delegated authority of the minister (Crown). Initially the Commonwelth thought they had immunity from Common Law torts, under Statute, however at the end of the day the Commonwealth representing itself & its employees decided to settle the matters out of Court.

    There’s this little Act called the Criminal Code Act 1995 specifically “The Schedule” which governs the actions of public servants including elected officials with everything from liability & strict liability right through to “The Proper Administration of Government”. This Act effectively removers all immunity where wrongdoing by public servants, including elected officials, can be agitated. The penalties are quite severe.

    The Criminal Code Act 1995 supersedes any immunity granted to the ABC under its legislation.

    Moving a tort under this Act motivates the Commonwealth to take a look at the actions or omissions of its employees and where a case has a good chance of success, rather than face potential consequences for itself or its employees the Commonwealth will settle out of Court.

  38. Alan

    “The Criminal Code Act 1995 supersedes any immunity granted to the ABC under its legislation.”
    Could you reference a High Court case and paragraph specifically proving that allegation?

  39. Alan

    Hang on Rob, I think I know what you are saying.
    As to negligence under torts, contract law, criminal conduct of employees, etc I agree. To prove what I think is your point, ABC v Redmore Pty Ltd [1989] HCA 15 had to consider the effect on a contract of a statutory provision that prohibited the making of a contract without the approval of a Minister. The ABC Act s 8(1) imposed a duty on the ABC Board to ensure that it did not contravene any provision of the ABC Act, but s 8(3) provided the immunity. Breach of the prohibition was incapable of giving rise to a “matter” against the Board
    But as BRENNAN AND DAWSON JJ wrote, and especially at paragraphs [8]-[9], “If the direction contained in s.70(1) were purely administrative and the validity of contracts entered into in contravention of that direction were unaffected, the direction would have no legal effect.” Instead, their Honours allowed “the expenditure of the moneys needed to discharge the contractual obligations incurred”, at [8]. Why? Because “scrutiny or report under the Audit Act does not affect a contractual obligation once it is incurred.”
    My comments were directed to ABC liability for violating the terms of the section 6 “ABC Charter” regards what they broadcast and how – this is where the ABC is immune. For example, in 2019, ABC breached the impartiality provisions of its own Code of Practice during its depiction of the beef industry in a Catalyst program aired on August 14, 2018. But note where that finding of guilt was found: the Australian Communications and Media Authority (ACMA). ACMA is a Media Authority, not a Court.

  40. stevem

    The problem is that the left generally live in a fishbowl and only hear one viewpoint. They believe all opposing viewpoints are “far right”. Therefore, when assessing balance, believe that their ABC is actually presenting a centre of the road viewpoint.
    Any calls to reform are immediately dismissed as being posed by radical racist homophobics.

  41. Rob MW

    Alan – I think you are reading too much into the ABC legislation as far as immunity/indemnity goes.

    The Commonwealth Parliament cannot grant immunity from defamation beyond the front door of the House of Parliament and any wrongdoing of Commonwealth employees is covered by the Criminal Code Act 1995 – The Schedule.

    I think what you are reading is an attempt by the Commonwealth to immune/indemnify the ABC Broadcasting corporation & the Commonwealth/Minister against ‘Vicarious Liability’ that will inevitability arise from time to time from state owned print and broadcast journalism given that both the ABC board and the Commonwealth are not the editors, nevertheless, this is an impossibility for the employer to overcome this liability where an injury has occurred. Publicly and knowingly providing false and defamatory material is a reconcilable offence (defamation – except inside the House of Parliament) regardless of whether or not the individual is acting in a private capacity (employee) or a public capacity (public servant).

    I found this to help explain this position a little better, its a DoD doc but explains:

    Chapter 7 – Legal Liability of Commonwealth Employees
    INTRODUCTION

    Commonwealth employees who are performing engineering and maintenance functions in accordance with the regulations presented in Section 2, are accountable for the decisions they make. This situation has raised the question of the legal liability of these employees.

    This chapter provides an overview of liability issues for Commonwealth employees. This includes both members of the ADF and civilian employees of the Department of Defence. Specifically, it does not address: actions that may be taken under the relevant Crimes Act for ‘criminal negligence;’ charges that may be preferred under section 35 of the Defence Force Discipline Act 1982 for ‘negligent performance of duty’; or the liability (civil or criminal) of staff employed by contractors, conducting engineering and maintenance activities for the Commonwealth.

    PURPOSE

    The purpose of this chapter is to provide an overview of legal liability issues as they apply to Commonwealth employees. It must be noted that where any conflicts occur between this guidance and the regulations, the regulations take precedence.

    LEGAL LIABILITY OF COMMONWEALTH EMPLOYEES

    Negligence

    Negligence is the failure to exercise the degree of care that is required by law in the particular circumstances. The purpose of the law of negligence is to enable a person who has suffered damage (personal injury, property damage or economic loss) through another person’s negligence to receive compensation to recoup that loss.

    Negligence can occur by either an act or an omission. Whether particular conduct amounts to negligence depends on the facts of each particular case. In summary, a person will only be liable for negligence if the following conditions are met: the law requires a degree of care to be exercised in the particular circumstance; the person fails to exercise this degree of care; and their failure to exercise the degree of care results in damage (loss) to another person.

    Vicarious Liability

    In general, a person is legally responsible for damage that results from their acts or omissions. However, it is an established principle of law that where an employee is negligent and causes damage giving rise to an action, the employer will be held liable for that damage, at least where the conduct of the employee that gave rise to the loss occurred in the course of or arose out of the employment and was not serious or willful misconduct. This is called the vicarious liability of the employer and has been developed by the courts based on the principle that the employer exercises control over the duties performed by the employee and is thereby responsible for the actions of the employee. Furthermore, an employer has an implied obligation to indemnify employees against liabilities arising out of or in the course of their employment.

    However, the fact that the employer, ie the Commonwealth, is vicariously liable does not of itself absolve the employee from liability. The plaintiff, namely the party suffering the loss or damage, may sue either the Commonwealth or the employee, or both parties. Generally the plaintiff will at least include the employer as a party to the action on the basis that the employer will generally be in a better financial position than the employee to meet their claim, whether by having insurance to cover the contingency or otherwise.

    Legal Services Directions 2005

    The Legal Services Direction 2005 (the Directions) issued in accordance with the Judiciary Act 1903, outline the circumstances in which Defence, as a Commonwealth agency, is permitted to provide legal assistance at Commonwealth expense to Commonwealth employees.

    The general policy underlying the provision of assistance to Commonwealth employees for legal proceedings is that such support provides a benefit to the Commonwealth, because it is of benefit to the Commonwealth to act properly as an employer in supporting employees who have acted reasonably and responsibly in performing their duties.

    Expenditure is normally approved to assist an employee who is a defendant in civil or criminal proceedings if the proceedings arose out of an incident that relates to their employment with the employing agency and the employee acted reasonably and responsibly.

    Assistance may be provided under the Directions to an employee who has acted, or is alleged to have acted, negligently, ie failed to exercise the legal standard of ‘reasonable care’ owed in the circumstances, but not where the employee’s conduct involved serious or willful misconduct or culpable negligence.
    Therefore, Commonwealth employees who provide engineering/maintenance advice as part of their duties with Defence are likely to be able to claim legal assistance at Commonwealth expense unless they have acted willfully, eg have deliberately set out to harm a person, or have been culpably negligent, eg they were drunk while performing their duties and therefore caused harm.

    Summary

    Where Commonwealth employees act reasonably and responsibly and within the scope of the duties expected of them it is likely that they will be entitled to legal assistance at Commonwealth expense. In addition, Defence maintains professional indemnity insurance policies that may respond should a relevant claim arise.
    Although this guidance has been reviewed by Defence Legal this information is only intended to provide a general overview of the civil liability of Commonwealth employees in relation to legal claims arising from the exercise of their duties. Questions of a specific nature should be directed to local legal staff at ADF establishments for further advice.

  42. Alan

    Oh dear Rob – war and peace when the link was ok!
    You have raised an interesting point with eg defamation.
    I can’t read it all now, but found an interesting chain of enquiry: Bellino v ABC.
    Maybe you can pick up anything (specific case!!) – please not a war and peace!

  43. Rob MW

    Alan – extremely short version: (remember – defamation/libel = negligence)

    Lange v Australian Broadcasting Corporation (1997) 189 CLR 520

Comments are closed.