Tuesday, July 03, 2012

Speaking from the pulpit ...

(Above: hang head in shame, the Four Corners catch up program is here for online viewing).

So guess the name of the narcissist member of the commentariat who scribbled:

The fact is there there is no evidence that the Catholic Church allows known pedophiles to speak from its pulpits. (here)

At the time of scribbling it, Gerard Henderson urged Catherine Deveny to name names and go to the police.

No doubt after watching the program on Four Corners, Unholy Silence, Mr. Henderson is right this minute trotting down to the nearest police station, demanding names be named and demanding immediate action.

Yes, the pond has a rich fantasy life.

Henderson has always shown a tendency, a proclivity, to fellow travel with the powerful, and to hell with anyone who might get caught up in the maw and crushed.

...perhaps the most alarming revelation is the fact that the Church turned a blind eye to the priest's crimes. Four Corners asks why, despite clear evidence of abuse, the Church allowed him to move from parish to parish, apparently without alerting the police. The program reveals that even now the Church will not admit the full extent of what it knew about the priest's activities.

And yes, he said Mass and spoke from the pulpit in assorted places, as have other offenders within the church.

The question is whether Henderson has any sense of shame, a capacity to confess and repent, and to put that repentance into print.

By golly, the pond has a great fantasy life. It should have been obvious that the story ran on the ABC, and ipso facto, by definition and by default, it is in error, most grievous error ...

But the show does set us up for this morning's Henderson homily, under the header WikiLeaks founder does not a different set of rules.

It's not surprising that a narcissist such as Julian Assange has one standard for himself and another for everyone else. However, it is surprising that some of his supporters in Australia and overseas have signed up to his sense of self-indulgence.

I guess it takes a narcissist to know a narcissist, but what exactly are the rules that Henderson is upholding?

Could it be Sweden's connivance in rendition? (Sweden Violated Torture Ban in CIA Rendition). Sweden has subsequently attempted to clean up its act in relation to US behaviour, but its track record and its current right wing government and its history in relation to Julian Assange gives no comfort regarding what it might conspire to do with the US administration.

As usual, Henderson leads with what might be called his 'it's easy to abuse Catholics, why don't you abuse Islamics in the same way' defence:

Imagine if a right-wing male activist was wanted in Sweden for questioning for similar alleged offences against women. He would have no supporters among the left in general or feminists in particular. Why should this be any different for Assange?

In reality of course, justice and a concept thereof shouldn't involve simplistic notions of political allegiance, and feminism in particular. If someone is being done over and set up by the law - even a Catholic priest - then leftists and feminists should urge justice over the findings of a kangaroo court.

But in Henderson's case, the fact that Assange has the likes of Geoffrey Robertson and John Pilger and Phillip Adams in his camp is enough to ensure instant fear and loathing.

As always, we turn to Mark 'stir the possum' Latham for guidance:

In a long diatribe against Geoffrey Robertson, it was reported “that Geoffrey Robertson QC obtained a staggering 86% of on-air time” in an interview with Laura Jayes of Sky News regarding the Julian Assange case. Not 85% or 90%, but precisely 86%.

In his obsessiveness, Henderson has over-dosed on media consumption. His life is an endless series of taped current affairs shows and talking heads, with Gerard hunched over his replay button and calculator working out how much “on-air time” his (perceived) enemies received in their interviews. (here)

It's worth remembering this sort of obsessive compulsive behaviour because it helps explain Henderson's blithe willingness to consign Assange to life in a US prison (Janet Albrechtsen was also recently in the same game, and copped a back hander from Guy Rundle in Albrechtsen confuses her idiots).

Henderson is so compelled that the enemy of his enemies that they become his friend, and so he's ready to swallow the conflations of a Bob Carr:

... as the Foreign Minister, Bob Carr, pointed out on Lateline last month, "there's some legal advice that it would be easier" for the US to extradite Assange from Britain than from Sweden. In any event, it is not clear if the US authorities will seek extradition in this case.

Which is simply not true. The Swedes have a special arrangement with the United States, and Carr can try to talk it away, but it's there.

Along with Carr, Henderson suddenly warms to Gillard:

For the Prime Minister, Julia Gillard, and her ministers to have acted any way other than they have in this case would have meant Assange had more rights than other Australian citizens in a similar situation.

Uh huh. So the usual right of an Australian citizen is to be pronounced a criminal by the Gillard government, by its fearless leader and by several of its ministers, as was done - indiscreetly bu Gillard and doofus Robert McClelland - back in 2010.

As usual with Henderson it's worth looking elsewhere to see a little outside the box:

The Gillard government’s response has been to insist the US is not doing anything in relation to Assange, a narrow legal point that defies the public reality of a multi-pronged campaign, one that the government insists it can’t see and therefore can do nothing about. “Wilful blindness” is the phrase that comes to mind. However, that strategy briefly lapsed in 2010 when Julia Gillard made the error of declaring WikiLeaks’ activity illegal. That claim, which Gillard has pointedly never retracted and that was clearly contradicted by advice from the AFP, may also prove crucial to demonstrating Assange’s case that the government will not protect him.

The federal Labor government has already mentally assigned Assange to the United States, and hasn't lifted a finger to help - contrast the activity of Bob Carr in relation to recent matters in Libya.

Assange is particularly critical of the Attorney-General, Nicola Roxon. But what is she supposed to do? Australia cannot interfere when one democratic nation (Sweden) is attempting to extradite an Australian citizen from another democratic nation (Britain).

Not even make representations and seek assurances? Not even a chance for Bob Carr to grandstand in a trip to Sweden? As opposed to indicating to all and sundry that Assange was a criminal in charge of an illegal organisation?

This was the situation even before Assange skipped bail in London. In a soft interview on Radio National's Late Night Live with Phillip Adams before he sought asylum, Assange claimed he had "been detained, without charge, for over 530 days now, under house arrest". Not so. The bail requirements merely stated that he spend nights at a designated location.

It's amazing how easy it is to make light of what others must endure.

Mr Assange must also surrender his passport, obey a curfew at an address in Suffolk, wear an electronic tag and report to a local police station every evening. (here)

Uh huh. So it being a curfew, with stringent conditions, makes it so much better than house arrest, as if Assange could roam freely all over the place, rather than sensibly bunker down and endure a term of exclusion from society ... when all that was required, since Swedish authorities have yet to charge him, was to arrange further questioning in the UK.

According to Henderson it's all Assange's fault for hanging around with leftists and feminists:

Assange's problems came about following his decision to address a leftist faction of Sweden's Social Democratic Party and his alleged sexual encounters with two women associated with the organisation. This is no CIA plot - except, of course, to the conspiracy theorists in our midst. Sweden's sexual conduct laws may be tough. But they are the laws of a democratic nation and they apply to everyone who lives in, or visits, Sweden.

Uh huh, but there's more than enough evidence on the record that the behaviour of the Swedish authorities and the women invovlved in the case has been irregular, almost peculiar. Is Henderson so blithe about Australians being hung for drug offences in Asia? Probably. Hang 'em high, hang 'em hard.

And then comes the rub. Henderson spends the next few pars proving that Assange is guilty of showing scant concern for people and the security of the United States, and guilty of endangering the lives of American forces on the battlefields and guilty of the deaths of others.

Guilty. Hang him high, hang him hard.

And as a result of this brazen, shocking guilt, what will happen?

The Assange saga has gone on too long already. He would be well advised to leave the Ecuadorean embassy and go to Sweden for questioning. There may well be no charges of sexual misconduct. Alternatively, if charged and convicted, he may serve a brief term of imprisonment.
Following either eventuality, Assange would be free to return to Australia or reside in any country that would accept him.

Uh huh. Easy peasy.

But before you swallow that particular bit of pie in the sky la la land nonsense, and you imagine Assange romping free and easy in the wild New England ranges, Henderson blithely provides an alternative solution:

If, in time, Feinstein's recommendations are taken up by US authorities, there might be an attempt at extradition. In which case, Assange would be subjected to the law of the nation in which he is residing. He is not entitled to special treatment.

Yep, it's hang him high, hang him hard, his actual crime revealing information - and most notably a shocking video still on view here - that people would prefer be kept hidden. And never mind that the Australian government has consistently lied in relation to the Assange matter, as has the United States government and its representatives, offering assurances one day, and the threat of a long stay in prison the next.

You don't have to be a conspiracy theorist to suspect the fix is in, and if you want an alternative version of events, try Guy Rundle's Parliament Square hums with Assange discontent.

Assange might not be a particularly attractive character - on occasions he seems to have been in rehearsal for a guest geek role in The Big Bang Theory - but his treatment has been exactly the same as that handed out to people caught up in the institution known as the Catholic church, grinding people to pulp in its maw.

Assange is still in the grinding process, WikiLeaks has been totally defanged and made irrelevant, and now comes the final act. It was inevitable that institutional stooges like Gerard Henderson and Janet Albrechtsen would join in the chant to crush Assange ...

No more shocking videos. Onwards to Iran ...


  1. If s*cking boys d*cks is commonplace, is not actually sexual, far less criminal activity, maybe that explains the success of the cult. A decent cult needs a prominent leader who can promote the basics of cognitive dissonance. Like, when the Cardinal said there had been no wrong-doing, then that ought to be enough on the matter. After all, the real enemy is Socialism, and the ABC.

  2. What struck me most about the snippets with Cardinal Pell was how much he came across as purely a business administrator. To me, he didn't seem like a "Man of God", full of contrition and remorse for what has happened to those innocent victims. He seemed just like a suit trying to limit the liability of his corporation. Aren't people like him supposed to have a more tuned in moral compass than the rest of us?

    Maybe he should be considered for running the new publication arm of News Ltd. He's already well experienced in obfustication and legalese. And I doubt news still employees copy boys these days so no risks there.


Comments older than two days are moderated and there will be a delay in publishing them.