QUEENSLAND Opposition Leader David Crisafulli was last week asked by Sky’s Paul Murray if he will at least reform Annastacia Palaszczuk’s assisted “suicide” regime if he is ever elected Premier. The extremist provisions of the Labor government’s laws include a ban on conscientious objection (no, referring-on does not ameliorate compunction) and the commandeering of private property to kill people. His answer is a masterclass in LNP waffle and capitulation. Video:
Yesterday, in the calm pages of the Catholic Weekly, the excellent Monica Doumit pointed out that, if anything, Liberals in government nowadays are as hostile to Christianity as Labor; possibly more so. Gladys Berejiklian seems almost to be at war with the Church. The only explanation is that she sees tactical advantage in neutralising the left’s culture raids, not merely by preempting them but by detonating their targets herself.
Abortion. Church closures. A failure to act on religious discrimination. And we might as well add cemeteries to this list as well. Put side by side in any other context, they seem like four wildly different and completely unrelated issues. Put side by side during a single term of a supposedly ‘conservative’ government, and you start to see a very troubling pattern of desertion of the base.
My Cook’s tour of leadership down the eastern seaboard having Victoria as its terminus, suffice to say that Archbishop Daniel Mannix’s state is no longer the lighthouse it was during his magisterial reign. Thanks to the rigged Pell prosecution and the government’s use of paramilitaries against the people, it has become known worldwide as a communist hellhole. In 1916-17, however, it was home and platform to Australia’s most successful freedom fighter. Via two pushy plebiscites, the Hughes government tried to ban conscientious objection and force citizens to kill. The scale was grander – as fell swoop, anyway – but the intent was the same as Queensland’s new law. In response, Mannix went to war against the Commonwealth, dozens of political heavyweights and the big press barons of the era. He took the battle to the streets and he won.
After the legalisation of euthanasia in Queensland – despite Crisafulli’s perfunctory no – Mannix’s heir in Melbourne took to… Twitter. Using words the saintlike Rev. Spooner would have abstained from exploiting, he declared “a pillar falls.” Also on Twitter, the Archbishop of Brisbane – in whose see Palaszczuk impersonates a Catholic – announced “a victory for death” before citing Seutonius. “The die is cast and across the Rubicon we go.” Um, no. These are not fighting, nor even Christian, words. They’re the words of crestfallen losers. After Calvary, death cannot triumph over the people of God. Foolish ford, wrong river. Try the Milvian Bridge. In hoc signo vinces.
The Bishops should draft and publish a decree that VAD ‘doctors’ will not be permitted in Catholic hospitals. Nor will staff in those hospitals send the suicidal to amenable vultures elsewhere. If the Queensland government wants to mobilise the police to arrest administrators, medicos, nurses and pastoral staff, so be it. But if that happens, what Catholics need to see is bishops in divvy vans with all the rest. The state isn’t playing and it doesn’t care about your Tweets.
Mannix sounds like a man of principle and great moral courage, so lacking in many church leaders of all denominations.
We could do with him now in Victoria, even though I am not a Catholic.
To be fair to Chrisafaulli, the abuse he copped on social media, from MSM journalists and commenters for publicly announcing he would vote no had to be seen to be believed.
Who knew how many people are keen to knock off granny?
Yes CL the bishop should.
Agree 100%, CL and Rosie. Thanks for the link to the Monica Doumit article, CL. I think that’s the first piece by her I’ve seen but will certainly keep an eye open for anything else from her.
anyone who reads the bible would know Christianity is in the distinct minority. The mailed in plebiscite on same sex marriage confirmed that. abortion, assisted suicides are a bi-partisan issues unfortunately.
The trial against Pell was not rigged. The jury found him guilty. We do not know why but 2 appeal judges did so on the basis of the credibility of the main witness.
The high court ruled against this saying on the basis of probabilities it could not have occurred. This must rule against the main witness’s credibility
A number of us were arguing this for some time.
The original judge clearly did not sum up very well at all. It was not rigged.
as for Mannix he indeed needs credit for opposing conscription. however there were others. John Curtin for one. how about the Qld premier.
This issue split the ALP just as prophesied to Fisher when he resigned.
Stop being an oxygen thief, Paxton.
Balance of Probabilities is not a standard of proof in Criminal Law. Not for trials or appeals.
And I won’t waste any more time on the rest of your shilling.
You are an embarrassment to trolls. What have you done to m0nty? At least his drive-by trolling and shillery (while as equally incompetent at yours) is at least somewhat coherent.
Go back to the sole sycohpantically toadying commenter at Steve of Brisbane’s blog.
good to see someone hasn’t read the high court judgement. of course to do that you have to be able to read.
find out what trolls are as well then go back to what was written in the article.
Now that is embarrassing but that was catallaxy all the time.
Paxton, you are too wilfully stupid to even be classified as a troll.
Go suckle on the Narrative elsewhere.
Just to help people who can read. The high court said the Judge erred in his summing up. they agreed with the minority opinion in the court of appeals who said the offences were very unlikely given the balance of probabilities involved.
That is again whether the offences occurred not whether Pell was guilty or not guilty.
To most people if it is highly unlikely the offences could have taken place then this would place the credibility of the only witness up for grabs.
Good to see JC has two outlets to vent his ignorant spleen these days
If it didn’t happen, you can’t be guilty.
There are two possible defences in sexual assault matters it didn’t happen/it wasn’t me or it was consensual.
There is nothing exceptional in the it didn’t happen defence, and the truth was, in the scenario provided by the prosecution, not only it didn’t happen, it couldn’t have happened.
Oh okay. If the crime didn’t occur he could still be guilty if the crime as you describe it.
You massive, massive idiot. Your idiocy is infinite.
Of the crime..
Lol.
Homer Paxton is still obsessed with Balance of Probabilities.
No Criminal Law matter hinges in any way on the Balance of Probabilities.
The High Court considered that both the original and appellate Court decisions in Victoria had not proven the accusations against Cardinal Pell Beyond Reasonable Doubt, and effectively rebuked both State Courts for failing to apply this standard of proof in the name of ideology.
If this is Paxton’s way of leaving open the ideological requirement that George Pell was guilty as sin (because he is a Class Enemy) and deserved to suffer for Paxton’s ideological pleasure, while reconciling that the man was found Not Guilty of all charges in such a way that would prevent him suffering a leftwit rage-induced aneurysm, let Paxton declare as such.
Let Paxton be Paxton.