Supreme Leader Ayatollah George PellWatch the media get whipped up over NSW cabinet minister Nathan Rees' suggestion that George Pell could "risk further comparison with that serial boofhead Sheik al Hilaly".
The Sydney Morning Herald has described Rees' speech as 'explosive'. To my mind, Rees' comments have only stirred the media because he has disturbed the existing double standard that exists in Australia where christian religious figures' commentary, no matter how outrageous or bigoted, is seen as free speech, while similar statements by minority religious figures such as Sheik al Hilaly are seen as a threat to our society. Funny, given who wields the most influence. As far as I know we haven't seen any MPs kissing al Hilaly's ring.
I'm glad Pell's attempts to blackmail Australia's catholic MPs have blown up in his face. His attempts to influence their votes on stem cell research were improper, and somewhat frightening, given that he clearly thinks he has the influence to sway some votes. The Australian media need to wake up to the fact that Pell's views, by and large, are just as bigoted, backward and scary as the worst of anything Sheik Taj el din al Hilaly has had to say, and report them in exactly the same way.
7 comments:
I'm damn impressed the ALPers have come out all guns firing Vs Pell. Very impressed!
And apparently they've fucked off talking to the Parrott as well. Go the state ALP for doing what they should have done years ago!
Apparently the Oz came out and defended Pell today. Typical double standards.
Still, I doubt the church will find it a terrible blow. Unfortunately.
You mean by this that you compare being anti-stem cell research with 'asking for it'? And therefore Pell and Hilali are 2 peas in a pod?
I'll chew it over... but this is something where (on first impressions) it seems to me Pell's view is about protecting what he sees as 'life'. I am not saying I agree with him, by the way. But I think its worth considering that he has a spiritual view on everything from conception onwards.
Hilali I suppose was also meaning to be 'protective', but the assumption is obviously distinctly sexist. Still, if you consider that rape and sexual violence are cultural, then maybe among the people his comments have been aimed at his views resonated. I know some women would agree with him :(
Sarah - you always say interesting things - sorry I mostly comment when I'm half disagreeing. Its not meant personally :)
If its just pissing you off, just tell me :)
pell and hilaly are in no disagreement on the position of women in society. pell might not say it's your fault you got raped but he does say you should be forced to bear your rapist's baby.
it's only because pell's comments are called free speech by newspapers while hilaly is castigated that you fail to see the similarities. pell even gets his own column to pontificate about how he, a citizen of the vatican, has the right to meddle in our political system.
it's also worth remembering that our society regularly blames the rape victim for the crime commited against them. just get gang raped by footy players and find out. strangely the chorus of outrage is muted when it's alan jones blaming women for being raped.
Justine- I don't mind in the slightest! I always appreciate well thought out perspectives that differ from mine (as opposed to the predictable right-wing troll perspective that occasionally pops up).
However, it's not like Pell's only dodgy belief is the one on stem cell research, and it's also not like Hilaly's only dodgy belief is his 'like dogs to uncovered meat' analogy to women in miniskirts. I"m referring to a pattern of behaviour. I still maintain that the only real difference between the two zealots is the name of the religion and the fact that Pell thinks he holds so much sway that he can threaten Catholic MPs with eternal damnation and influence their votes on an issue.
He's perfectly entitled to his belief of course, but it's not his right to attempt to wield improper influence in this democratic country, particularly when polls reveal a majority of Australians support stem cell research.
Gam's point is also something I touched on when I posted on Sheik Hilaly's 'women are asking for it' nutbaggery... from the samples of talkback radio commentary I heard when the Bulldogs gang-rape thing was in the news, there are plenty of very ordinary Australians who have similar views. Somehow they're only bad and controversial when a muslim spouts them...
:)
"pattern of behaviour"? Careful Sarah and Gam, you two are starting to resemble a couple of sociologists! (that's meant to be a genuine compliment, but one I suspect you'd love to hate)
I see where you're coming from - that Pell's views are more 'mainstream' and linked to the Alan Jones listeners.
I couldn't agree more that the treatment of victims of rape and sexual violence is terrible :( Alan Jones is utterly full of wank.
My comment was motivated more by a seminar I went to a few years ago about ethics and stem cell research, and Melb Uni. It really annoyed me that there was no serious ethical debate. When an audience member asked about scientific profits, the researcher's said of course that was a consideration, laughed, and that was the end of the 'debate'.
I support in principle stem-cell research, and I hope it produces medical therapies. But the ethical debate has to happen - in principle - and religious folks are going to always want to have a say in ethical matters. But as you point out, its the way they use their influence we need to watch out for.
I think movements for social justice should be careful not to ignore ethical considerations, just because they happen to overlap with the views of their social/political adversaries. It doesn't weaken our stance, it strengthens it.
Thanks for giving me the chance to straighten my views out...
:) justine
Post a Comment