- Recently unemployed eligible for $750 a week ‘job keeper’ payment
- Will this pandemic force us to understand our privilege?
- Study: Only two hours of Googling required to become an expert
- We’re living through the age of the terribly named child. Believe it.
- With parliament shut down, why are our politicians on full pay?
Last night, both Andrew Bolt and Miranda Devine chose personal opinion over evidence and the ruling of a court. In my personal opinion, both should be held responsible.
Yesterday, George Pell had his day in court, he was afforded a fair trial, and a jury of his peers found him guilty. From an objective standpoint, justice was served, and that should have certainly been that. Late yesterday, we discovered it wasn’t. The machinations of divisive nonsense creaked into life, as two members of the media, castigated the ruling of the court, believing that Pell was the victim, in that he couldn’t possibly do it, because.
Both Miranda Devine and Andrew Bolt have thrown doubt on the ruling, applying their own long-serving legal statute, their opinion. They both wrote articles yesterday, with Devine stating that Pell couldn’t have done it because she “knows him slightly, and admires him greatly”, and Bolt claimed that “he is a scapegoat, not a child abuser. In my opinion,” both parties doubting the evidence without seeing it, both parties leaning on the character of the man found guilty of child abuse.
In my opinion, this is why victims do not come forward. This is why they quietly carry the trauma until it overcomes them. The nonsense above proves that no-one will take you seriously, and your truth is a lie, and a ruling will not vindicate you. What that brave man endured yesterday should be our focus, not this. If you want a story how about the 13-year-old that was wronged by a man who rose to the top of the most powerful organisation on the planet, the one who fought an ex-Prime Minister of Australia, and a swarm of payroll columnists paid by a man who runs an Empire worth $18 billion. He fought those who control the narrative and won. His grand bravery should be the narrative we favour, not “the aggressor couldn’t have done it, because he’s my friend.”
Yet, this morning, that brave soul faces an intolerable present for daring to expose his intolerable past. Bolt, incidentally, also allegedly forced journalist Lucie Morris-Marr out of Newscorp for daring to reveal that the police were investigating Pell. Bolt and Devine may be castigated for their use of the language and cast off as fools by those who don’t buy their paper, but their words have power, as do they, as they are figureheads of conservatism in this country. In my opinion, they’re choosing to merely expose their own hubris, their belief that the ruling of the court is weaker than their sentences. We can quibble about the power of personal opinion and the division between left and right, progressive and conservative in this country, but ostensibly, in my opinion, Bolt and Devine are using their positions of power to call a survivor of childhood rape a liar. All else is the sea.
Yesterday, most of the rhetoric that swirled around the decision was that it would represent the beginning, in that many victims will now come forward, freed by a guilty verdict, they will be heard, and justice will be done. What we’re really left with, is hope. The hope that those who have endured this horror can face us, and the hope that we can get these people who abused the trust we placed in them. Despite the words of Bolt and Devine, I certainly hope that that is the case.
Breaking: The father of one of the two choirboys who was sexually assaulted by #cardinalpell plans to launch a civil suit for damages. His son died in 2014 aged 30 after spiralling into drug addiction. He’s said never to have recovered from the abuse. More soon @TheNewDailyAu
— Lucie Morris-Marr (@luciemorrismarr) February 26, 2019