I also want to do a "cross-link" and cross-post.
The "cross-link" is to mark the second anniversary of the passing of a politician whose electorate we used to live in. The post is "In memorium - and an exhortation to engage", and is a fairly long list of extracts from political emails, which I won't cross post here, but it also includes the following, which I will cross-post, as I consider spiritual activism needs to be undertaken jointly with physical activism:
The following extracts are from selected emails I’ve written over the years to a former member of my home state’s Parliament (the Legislative Assembly) when I lived in her electorate. Her passing, two years ago this week, was early and untimely.
I’ve corrected some of the typos.(Also, please note that I have written many other emails on these matters, but to other Members of Parliament.)My main personal reason for this post is a sense of mourning; however, it may help to show others that there is a point to engaging – politely and constructively (which can be difficult when you're frustrated, but does lead to better outcomes) - with your elected representatives. My correspondence was not the only, or even of any particular significance, on these issues, but there were changes on some of these matters - not always as timely or as far as I wished, but enough to show me the value of being engaged - and that engagement has, partly as a result of other positive experiences with politicians, led to me joining a political party, albeit more to the left than this particular MLA.Some of our correspondence was hard copy, which allowed us to, for instance, share a love of walking barefoot (with a reply having my typed name crossed out and replaced with “fellow barefoot advocate”, for instance).She wasn’t family, our relationship was too narrowly focused, official and limited to be a friendship, and her politics were more to the right of mine but she accomplished a great deal (especially on domestic violence), was a good elected representative, and I miss her.Blessed be, Fiona Richardson.
The other article is also from my political blog, and was originally posted at https://politicalmusingsofkayleen.blogspot.com/2019/08/a-commentary-on-todays-appeal-court.html.
*****
The Appeals Court of my home state has rejected an appeal by a well-known neochristian figure against his conviction for child abuse. Child abuse victims - including the one at the centre of this case - and supporters / allies have welcomed this decision, split 2-1 though it was, but there is a possibility of an appeal to Australia's High Court (partly because of the split), so the matter has not been resolved.
The decision has brought a few things to mind for me.
Firstly, irrespective of the outcome of any further appeals, I do not like the person convicted, but that dislike is not based on any potential child abuse, it is based on his homophobia, transphobia, and dedication to and proselytising of an inhumane interpretation of neochristianity. In fact, I have read articles - long before these charges were laid - where others of his faith were critical of him for similar reasons.
He also, in my opinion, developed an utterly inadequate response to child abuse when it started to become public, but that may have been due to much of the rest of his neochristian church as much as him.
NONE of that means he is a child abuser. I'm aware of some people linking having power to child abuse, but I'm also aware of at least some abusers going out of their way to be personable, which doesn't, in my opinion, apply to this person.
Secondly, I am thinking of the victims - which includes me, although my abuse was not at the hands of religious people. Some religious people, including priests, are also thinking of the victims - see, for instance, here.
For those who need them:
- Lifeline on 13 11 14
- Kids Helpline on 1800 551 800
- MensLine Australia on 1300 789 978
- Suicide Call Back Service on 1300 659 467
- Beyond Blue on 1300 22 46 36
- Headspace on 1800 650 890
- ReachOut at au.reachout.com
As this trial has been proceeding, I've been wondering whether that person I declined contact with actually committed any abuse, or if I was wrong (I was not wrong to back out of further contact), or if I was a one-off for that person - who, you will notice, I am carefully not giving any identifying information about (as I could be wrong about their intent, and I backed out before anything happened). I've done some internet searching for the person concerned, but without any result, and I suspect I will never know.
That was the third point. The fourth is the vehemence of the well-known person's supporters, who are prepared to disbelieve the jury's assessment. Now, noting that there is a difference between freedom of expression or valid criticism and the unreasonable behaviour known as "scandalising the court", that disbelief is not limited to the judicial system, it occurs in many other areas of life, including politics, assessing climate change - even on the issue of whether the earth is flat or round (for the record, I say round).
There are circumstances where such scepticism - aka objectivity - can be useful - for instance, when considering Russia's infamous "show trials", or Chinese propaganda, or when choosing how to react to something on social media.
The current situation, in my opinion, is not one of those situations.
My standard response when asked about controversial court decisions is along the lines of "I wasn't in court, so I didn't get to see all the evidence and hear the testimony, so I don't know". When it comes to child abuse, however, one of the biggest problems is not believing the victims - a point made very eloquently in "Spotlight", and something I have knowledge of from my life as well (although not directly).
My opinion is that this person's supporters need to recognise that there are two matters they are possibly conflating: their feelings about the person, and their feelings about their faith - which is bigger than any one priest. It may help them to acknowledge and meditate on that. If I can separate my dislike for the person concerned from the charges before the courts, they can do the same for their like.
People are complex creatures - after all, even the truly evil John Howard did some good with the national gun laws. I don't consider the person whose appeal was rejected today has done anything to offset anything, but his supporters do. Maybe they should also reflect on the complexity of humans as well.
