Reply
Sat 10 May, 2003 06:49 pm
Australia's (largely) for show head of state, known as the Governor General, is having a difficult time.
The Governor General is head of state for the whole country - each state has their own little one, called a Governor.
These people have ceremonial and symbolic status - but also some constitutional powers - as Australians found out to their surprise on the 11th of November 1975, when a Governer General dismissed the federal government, after supply was blocked in parliament, and appointed the leader of the opposition as temporary Prime Minister until an election could be called.
The previous Governer General took on a powerful role around reconciliation with Aboriginal people when the current government were elected, and firmly turned their back on this whole process.
So - Hollingworth, our current GG, was previously an Archbishop of the Church of England. The church's practices around the whole issue of sexual abuse by clergy have recently been condemned in a report into the matter, and Hollingworth has been named personally as responsible in a number of very badly handled cases.
There have been many calls for his resignation over this - by people who believe that having a person accused of bad practice in this area sends a poor message (albeit, in my view, a justified one) about Australia's attitude to victims of sexual abuse.
Then, last week, suppression orders were lifted in a supreme court civil case, where compensation is being asked for, where a woman alleged that she had been seriously abused whilst in the care of the Anglican church - (in various institutions and foster homes under their control) - as well as raped by Hollingworth some 40 years ago - when she was nineteen.
The woman committed suicide two weeks ago - but her family are continuing the case.
The Governor general has denied the charges - and is currently refusing to resign. He has the support of the Prime Minister - though not necessarily of the government.
So - what do we think? What is the right thing to do in this case?
(I will try and find some links for you all.)
I suspect that his handling of sexual abuse by clergy was - while poor from a current perspective - probably no worse than that of other prominent churchmen of the time - in many denominations.
dlowan, kinda hard to read between the lines here, but this almost seems like a nail to hang the hat of dissolution from the Queen on rather than an issue unto itself. we dont get a lot of info here so its hard to tell whats going on down under.
dlowan...I must admit that I have never heard of Mr Hollingworth before or, for that matter, of the position of Governor General of Australia.
I read the link you provided from the media and also his denial of the rape charge. I'm afraid I skipped the 100+ pages re the possible mis-handling of the clergy abuse accusations.
It seems to me that, for one reason or another, knives are drawn and there are plenty of people who want his scalp.
So be it, but from my vantage point (10000 miles away and with no first hand knowledge of the details other than what you have provided) I would tend to respect the opinion of your ACLU leader about this being a "witch-hunt."
Please let me know how the story plays out. -rjb-
(Do you have witches is Australia?)
(And I wish you'd come back to Balderdash.)
LO RJB!
Dys - nah- not hanging that on it - that sadly is dead for the life of this government.
I didn't expect people so much to comment on this particualr situatuion, but mor eon the situation in general.
The USA, I know, has been having analogous issues - especially with the catholic church.
dlowan...I drafted a response to your broader question about analogous issues last night but it got destroyed before or as I was attempting to send it.
I see by my BBC ticker that the GG has "agreed to 'stand down."
I reckon that means he is falling on his sword for the greater good of Australia or the Anglican church.
So be it but, as a dyed-in-the-wool liberal, I don't like the notion of people being presumed guilty until they can prove their innocence.
Having said that, I can appreciate the greater good idea. There was a story Saturday morning on our National Public Radio (NPR) about, initially, the dramatic decline in contributions to the Bishops' Relief Funds in Catholic church dioceses in various parts of the US.
(I don't know how to do links but you can get access to the story at npr.org). The decline in money coming in was something like 30% in Boston. The story told about how this was affecting the homeless shelters, soup kitchens, etc that the church typically funded.
Near the end of the piece, the story took a different twist. A parent commented that he wasn't sure that he could be comfortable continuing to entrust his children to the care of the church. I'm paraphrasing badly, perhaps, but his quote went something like this: "...and that is a decision that affects not only my children but also their children and their children."
So we come back to the idea of the greater good. When does the guilt or innocence of the person accused of misdeeds become irrelevant? -rjb-
RJB - here's a thing! When it was just a question of handling the abuse issue generally badly, there was little or no suppor, apparently, in the polls for the GG.
Once the rape allegation broke, support went up.
Interesting phenomenon.
Yet, apparently, he has stood down pending resolution of the rape case - which is, as I said, a civil rather than criminal thing.
Either people adhere strongly to the innocent until proven guilty thing, or have shifted to sympathy because of feeling what a hard time the man is having, or prejudices re rape are operating - or all of the above.
Or none of the above!
I suspect he is a man limited by his age and milieu who handled clergy abuse very badly - but probably no more so than many men just like him - and he is no orphan in that, heaven knows. Because of his position, I suspect he is something of a scapegoat now. I feel a lot of sympathy for him I must say.
If he DID commit the rape - that changes - but we are likely never to know - the law being a blunt instrument for "making windows in mens' souls" indeed. If he didn't - poor man....
I don't feel a lot of sympathy for him at all. He deliberately covered up the incidents of sexual abuse, and in doing so compounded a criminal act by NOT reporting it to the police. And to top it off he's also claimed that the priest was the 'victim', not the child involved.
As for the current allegations, there won't be much of a trial (if any). With his accuser dead then there really is no-one to pursue the case to court. As for standing down, that is the correct thing to do in such a situation.
Stumble It!
Tweet This
Bookmark on Delicious
Share on Facebook
Share on MySpace