ABC: Stop misrepresenting Martine Delaney’s complaint about the Tasmanian Catholic Church and Archbishop Julian Porteous

Sep 6, 2019

Between August 29 and September 4 2019 the ABC broadcast one misrepresentation and two unchallenged assertions about the complaint Martine Delaney’ lodged (and subsequently withdrew) about the Tasmanian Catholic Church and Archbishop Julian Porteous.

Martine Delaney’s complaint had nothing to do with preaching “church doctrine” and everything to do with the church claiming same-sex couples couldn’t be whole, healthy, raise healthy children, and were “messing with kids”.

The complaint is described here:

“A complaint was brought to the commissioner by Ms Delaney, who objected to the Tasmanian Catholic Church which had printed a pamphlet stating that same-sex parents ‘mess with kids’ and that same-sex partners were not ‘whole people’. ‘Messing with kids’ has a connotation that is extremely disturbing and alludes to practices which are a subject of the royal commission into institutionalised child abuse, a practice which up until very recently had been hidden deeply within some church-run facilities, widely throughout Australia”

Andrea DAWKINS (MP for Bass)
22 September 2016 at 4:48pm
Tasmanian House of Assembly Hansard [PDF]

Amongst everything else, it’s particularly disappointing the nation’s highest lawyer, the Attorney-General for Australia, can’t even get the facts right.

My transcripts of the relevant sections from the media are below.


Christian Porter

“Well, um, the archbishop, the Catholic archbishop of Tasmania Mr Porteous went through something you know quite awful I think, he distributed a pamphlet, which was distributed widely across Australia, um, devised and drafted by the Catholic Church which did little more than put the Catholic Church’s view about the virtues of the traditional definition of marriage, and he was the subject of a complaint under a very very broad section of the Tasmanian Discrimination Act.”

ABC RN Drive – Thursday 29 August 2019 – 6:06pm
Federal Government unveils religious discrimination legislation
Section: 6:08 – 6:39

Gerard Henderson

“I’ve looked at the Bill and I’ve looked at the minister’s, the Attorney-General’s speech. And it is a draft bill. So I think it’s, it’s in a pretty good position at the moment. There will be opposition from both sides. But I think it does cover two issues.  The Israel Folau issue and the Archbishop Porteous issue in Hobart. Now the Catholic Archbishop of Hobart put out a statement just stating Catholic position on marriage. [indistinct] actimist took him to a discrimination thing that caused… a discrimination commission in Tasmania that caused a huge issue…”

ABC Insiders – Sunday September 1 2019
Section: 44:57 – 45:08

Andrew West

“So those incidents that you’re talking about Renae, the most prominent of those included a Catholic bishop in Tasmania who was brought before an anti-discrimination commission because he published a church doctrine on family and marriage that some objected to…”

ABC Religion & Ethics Report
“Religious freedom for religious minorities”
Wednesday September 4 2019
Section: 2:20 – 2:35

How I worked out why I wasn’t receiving the confirmation email when changing the email address on a Twitter account

Jun 4, 2019

In trying to change the email address on a Twitter account I was not receiving the confirmation email from Twitter containing the link to validate the change of email address.

After much frustration, and with no luck with using Twitter’s help system, I gave up completely.

Separately, and some time later, someone told me an email they sent me had bounced. I knew the email address was working because I was getting emails from other people addressed to it. I should note that the email address was one that belonged to a domain I manage.

This is the error message they received (which I’ve anonymised):

mailto:user@domain.name
   all relevant MX records point to non-existent hosts or (invalidly) to IP addresses
Reporting-MTA: dns; se3-syd.hostedmail.net.au <http://se3-syd.hostedmail.net.au/>
Action: failed
Final-Recipient: rfc822;mailto:user@domain.name
Status: 5.0.0
Diagnostic-Code: smtp; It appears that the DNS operator for domain.name <http://domain.name/> has installed an invalid MX record with an IP address instead of a domain name on the right hand side.

This got me thinking, and made me suspect that it was possible the Twitter verification email was bouncing for the same reason.

I changed the DNS setting for my domain name, replacing the IP address for the MX record with the hostname of the mail server.

I then went to my Twitter profile, requested the confirmation email again, and can report that it promptly arrived, much to my delight.

Ultimately it would be helpful if Twitter’s email verification mechanism reported errors when its verification emails bounce (for whatever reason), rather than doing nothing.


Australian Christian Lobby misleadingly claim Leonda By The Yarra will host their anti-gay hate event

May 24, 2019

The Australian Christian Lobby have claimed one of Melbourne’s premiere wedding venues Leonda By The Yarra is scheduled to host their 2019 Victoria Conference “Not Ashamed” on July 20 this year.

2019 Victoria Conference

Join us for the 2019 Victoria Conference – ‘Not Ashamed’ – Saturday, 20 July.

Join Victorian State Director Dan Flynn, ACL’s Managing Director Martyn Iles and Director of Research Elisabeth Taylor, along with additional speakers at Leonda By The Yarra, Hawthorn. 

Registration includes refreshments, lunch and afternoon tea. 

WHEN
July 20, 2019 at 8:30am – 3:30pm

WHERE
Leonda By The Yarra
2 Wallen Rd
Hawthorn, VIC 3122
Australia
Google map and directions

CONTACT
Jennifer Kent · vic.events@acl.org.au

The Eventbrite page for this event similarly states:

Victorian State Conference
Join us for the 2019 Victorian State Conference – Not Ashamed.

Not Ashamed – Victoria – Saturday 20 July

Join Victorian State Director Dan Flynn, ACL’s Managing Director Martyn Iles and Director of Research Elisabeth Taylor, along with additional speakers, in the beautiful Ballroom of Leonda by The Yarra.
Registration includes refreshments, lunch and afternoon tea.

Leonda By The Yarra have issued this statement in response:

We wish to advise that the Australian Christian Lobby does not currently have a confirmed booking with Leonda By The Yarra for their 2019 event. Whilst we have been in discussions with this group, like we do for any organisation enquiring with us, we do agree that this organisation does not share the same values as our business and as such this event will not be proceeding at our venue.

Their beliefs about sin and the need of repentance through the love of Christ go against our MEG values of Lots of Love and Positive People, and go against our ethos of providing a warm and welcoming environment for weddings which know no bounds in terms of religious denomination, or sexual orientation.

We are all for freedom of expression, but believe that the ACL can find a more suited platform for their voice elsewhere.



UPDATE – May 27 2019 1:55pm
Confirmation has been received that the ACL are fully aware that Leonda By The Yarra are not hosting this event.


UPDATE – May 29 2019 – 5:50pm
The ACL have updated their Eventbrite page to show the conference now being at MCEC, however the ACL web site still lists Leonda By The Yarra as the venue.


UPDATE – May 30 2019 – 14:05
The ACL have removed the venue Leonda By The Yarra from their web site, however the venue’s address persists.


UPDATE – May 31 2019 – 14:50
The ACL have finally removal all vestiges of Leonda By The Yarra from their 2109 Victorian conference web site.


UPDATE – May 31 2019 – 15:20
Mysteriously the ACL have now removed from their Eventbrite page the reference to hosting their event at the MCEC Clarendon Room and replaced it with a vague “Melbourne CBD” location.


Lyle Shelton’s latest tamtrumette

May 2, 2019

Has anyone noticed that Lyle Shelton always manages to turn everything around and make it about him?

My article Lyle Shelton calls the police puts Lyle’s silly trantrumette into perspective.


Graham Young admits gay activists brought him to his knees

Apr 16, 2019

Who would have thought that gay activists could have sucked dry Graham Young’s rivers of advertising gold:

While On Line Opinion may have contributed to some small softening of political debate, that would be impossible to detect compared to what social media has licenced.

In 2010 we were the subject of an advertising boycott, organised by gay activists, which destroyed the business model of the site. (Read the full details here.) Our sin was that we published this article by Bill Muehlenberg as part of a feature containing 25 articles on gay marriage, 75% of which were in favour of it.

But to activists 75% is not enough. It has to be 100%, so in a technique, since used by organisations like the Australian Conservation Foundation, and Sleeping Giants, our advertisers were targeted to pressure us to stop publishing anyone who disagreed with the activists. $17,000 income from advertising in the month of November 2010 went to virtually nothing in January 2011.

The same thing is being done to Rugby Australia over Folau, but instead of protecting his human rights, RA is caving in.

http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=20260&page=0

He gives a lot of credit to these gay activists for their actions. But stop for a minute and think about what he’s saying.

These activists approached his advertisers with a simple request not to advertise on his site, and they made an informed decision not to place their brand amongst the content he chose to publish.

Short of taking credit for the distasteful content his advertisers chose to avoid, be blames homosexual people for daring to take exception to homophobic content he published.

If there ever were the monthly thousands pouring into the On Line Opinion coffers that Graham Young claims, the fault lies at his feet for not having done the necessary risk analysis to cater for the day he might not have the loyalty of his most profitable advertisers. After all, they’re only trying to protect their brand from being tarnished by the toxic content he was publishing.

And that’s exactly what Qantas is doing by not wanting to have their brand tarnished by the homophobia emanating from Rugby Australia’s midst.

Hark Graham: Don’t be surprised when your pro-gay advertisers object to your homophobic opinion.


POSTSCRIPT

After I published this article Chrys Stevenson contacted me and brought to my attention the following extract from her 12-Feb-2011 blog MY FREE SPEECH FIASCO, which paints a different reality to that which Grahan Young believes occurred:

So, when I heard that Graham was being persecuted for publishing an anti-gay marriage article by Catholic conservative, Bill Muehlenberg, I was outraged.  I disagree with everything Muehlenberg said in the article, but, in the cause of free speech, I supported his right to put his point of view, and Graham’s right to publish it.  Muehlenberg’s article is highly selective, makes some ridiculously broad assumptions and is clearly biased.  On the other hand, it is reasonably well written and, while being critical of what he sees as homosexuals’ proclivity for infidelity, he doesn’t (in my view) directly vilify GLBTI people, either as individuals or as a group.


The story I heard, initially, was that someone had taken offence at the article, complained to some of the advertisers on the site (specifically IBM and ANZ) and that these companies had removed their ads – at significant financial cost to Online Opinion.


Impulsively, I contacted Graham and offered my support.  I also did a quick survey of articles about same-sex marriage on Online Opinion and found that pro-gay articles far outnumbered anti-gay articles.  There was no question of anti-gay bias.


Graham then made me aware of an article about the incident on the gay online journal, SX.  The story suggested the problem was not so much Muehlenberg’s article, as Graham’s failure to remove an offensive comment, by ‘Shintaro’ on another article which suggested that gays should either stay in the closet or be murdered.  Graham protested that he hadn’t removed the comment because it had been taken out of context.  He provided me with the link and I satisfied myself that the person who posted it was not advocating violence at all; he was pro-gay and anti-violence and the comment was intended to show where the anti-gay rhetoric in the discussion could lead.


Now, in high dudgeon at the injustice of it all, I posted a comment on SX defending Graham and Online Opinion and I wrote an email to a number of influential bloggers and columnists suggesting that they join me by writing in Graham’s defence.


Graham emailed back saying, in effect, “Nice email, but the facts are wrong.”


It seems that in my rush to play the part of Crusader Rabbit,  I hadn’t done my homework on the issue thoroughly enough, and Graham had (quite rightly) assumed that I had.  The advertising, it seems,  wasn’t lost because of the comment mentioned on SX, it was withdrawn because of another comment altogether.  This comment read:


“It’s interesting that so many people are offended by the truth. The fact is that homosexual activity is anything but healthy and natural. Certain lgbt’s want their perversion to be called “normal” and “healthy” and they’ve decided the best way to do this is have their “marriages” formally recognised. But even if the law is changed, these “marriages” are anything but healthy and natural. It is, in fact, impossible for these people to be married, despite what any state or federal law may say.”

Posted by MrAnderson, Thursday, 25 November 2010 10:09:39 AM


A gay reader brought the comment to Graham’s attention and asked for the reference to the ‘perversion’ of LGBT people to be removed.  Although Graham did not agree with the remark, he felt that it was a view which was commonly expressed among a minority of Australians, which did not incite violence, and which would have been acceptable (if widely condemned) in a parliamentary debate.  Given his commitment to free speech, Graham refused to delete it.


Having been rebuffed by Graham, the reader then decided to complain to the site’s advertisers.  Someone within IBM (it is not clear whether it was the same person) also complained to their management.  As a result, IBM and the ANZ decided to withdraw their advertising from Online Opinion and a number of other advertisers followed.  Sadly, as Online Opinion is part of an advertising co-operative, this meant that other bloggers also lost a substantial amount of their income, despite having nothing to do with Graham’s editorial decisions.


Now I was in a quandary.  In fact, I felt like I’d been hit with a ton of bricks.  All day I’d been sending supportive emails to Graham and shouting loudly from my ‘freedom of speech’ soap-box.  He thought I was an ally.  I thought I was an ally!  Now I realized I’d gone off half-cocked and, with this new information to hand, I felt I couldn’t defend Graham’s actions.  I felt sick, conflicted and embarrassed.  OK, I felt stupid.  I’d emailed all these people and said ‘stand up for freedom of speech!’  Now, if I was to be true to my own moral compass, I was going to have to write back to them and say, “Given new information to hand, I’m no longer standing up for free speech.”  I wished that a large black hole would just open up and consume me right then and there.


When I told Graham that I could no longer speak out publicly in his defence, he said I didn’t understand what free speech means.  Perhaps he was right.  I support free speech within limits, but not untrammeled free speech.  Perhaps that’s a terrible cop-out.  Perhaps it is ideologically unsound.  All I know is that every ethical atom of my being was screaming at me that I couldn’t defend the right of anyone to call a gay person perverted.  Nor could I support the decision not to delete a comment which was not only highly offensive, but, given the weight of expert medical and sociological opinion, patently untrue.


https://thatsmyphilosophy.wordpress.com/2011/02/12/my-free-speech-fiasco

What do Cardinal George Pell and Rabbi Ronald Lubofsky have in common?

Feb 26, 2019

What do Rabbi Emeritus Ronald Lubofsky AM and His Eminence Cardinal George Pell AC have in common?

Both appointed to the Order of Australia.
Both revered in their religious circles.
Both vehemently opposed to homosexuality and sexual immorality.
Both sexually abused / predated on young boys.

Pell pulled out his penis and approached the other boy, grabbing his head.
The complainant asked Pell, “Can you let us go? We didn’t do anything.”
“I could see his [the boy’s] head being lowered towards his [Pell’s] genitalia,” the complainant recalled. “Then he sort of started squirming, he was struggling. His head was being controlled and it was down near archbishop Pell’s genitals. I was no more than a couple of metres away.”
This took place for about a minute or two. Pell stopped and turned to the complainant.
“And then he put his penis into my mouth. Archbishop Pell was standing, he was erect, and he pushed it into my mouth. He instructed me to undo my pants and take off my pants, and I did that. And then he started touching my genitalia. Archbishop Pell was touching himself on his penis with his other hand.”
When it was over the complainant, in shock, pulled up his pants. The boys left the room and tried to rejoin the procession before returning their robes.
About a month later, again after Sunday solemn mass, Pell passed the complainant in a corridor of the church and attacked. He pushed the boy against a wall and forcefully squeezed his genitals through his choir robes.
“Nothing was said,” the complainant said. “It was all within a matter of seconds.”

https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2019/feb/26/five-times-guilty-how-george-pells-child-abusing-past-caught-up-with-him-in-courtroom-43

The world can now know that a little over 20 years ago, in Pell’s first months as archbishop of Melbourne, this scourge of sex was forcing choirboys to suck his penis.

https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2019/feb/26/brutal-and-dogmatic-george-pell-waged-war-on-sex-even-as-he-abused-children

It was alleged by two men in 2012 that the late Rabbi Emeritus Ronald Lubofsky AM of St Kilda Synagogue masturbated in front of them during their bar mitzvah lessons in the 1970s and 1980s.  These men would have been 12 or 13 years old boys at the time.  So far neither of these men have gone public with the details of this sexual abuse.
Members of the board of St Kilda Synagogue were made aware of these allegations at the time they arose.

https://mikeybear.com.au/2018/01/08/rabbi-emeritus-ronald-lubofsky-am-child-sexual-predator

Australian Christian Lobby launches new logo

Feb 13, 2019

I love the new Australian Christian Lobby logo.  For once they’ve been totally honest.

ACL logo


%d bloggers like this: