Parliamentary Privilege

[IFocus]

Regardless of the credibility of the Catholic Church (or anybody else for that matter), a politician's role is to make law, not exercise it.

We have courts for the latter.

Yes even though the thought of burning pedophiles at the stake has some appeal politicians are notorious for lying or being deceitful to suit their cause Abbott being a prime example LOL

 

[drsmith]

Yes even though the thought of burning pedophiles at the stake has some appeal politicians are notorious for lying or being deceitful to suit their cause Abbott being a prime example LOL

Was that the sound of the bow string snapping ?

EDIT:
On second thought, it might be the wood.

It's rotten.

 

[drsmith]

Those of you who think that Senator Xenophon was wrong seem to be in a minority.
This is the current poll on the Adelaide Adveriser...

That's why it's better to have courts decide these matters, not politicians.

 

[Julia]

As long as the Senator is prepared to repeat the allegations outside the parliament then I guess that would be OK.

If he won't then he is abusing Parliamentary privilege IMO.

This is the essence of the issue imo.

But I wondered if perhaps we may have a faulty perception of what parliamentary privilege was designed to do, looked it up, and the following is what I found:
(Bolding is mine). ...

Privileges are actually immunities from the ordinary law:

‘The privileges of Parliament are immunities conferred in order to ensure that the duties of members as representatives of their constituents may be carried out without fear of intimidation or punishment, and without improper impediment... a privilege of Parliament is more properly called an immunity from the operation of certain laws, which are otherwise unduly restrictive on the proper performance of the duties of Parliament.’

[Senate Committee of Privileges, ‘Committee of Privileges 1966 - 1996, History, Practice and Procedure,’ 62nd Report June 1996 page 1.]

So, if we accept the above definition, it would seem Senator Xenophon was in fact acting within the accepted boundaries of parliamentary privilege.

Even if we accept that, then has he not set what would seem to be an unacceptable precedent for anyone who has been abused by any Church, and who feels he/she is not receiving justice via the Church, to assume they are likewise entitled to have Senator Xenophon raise their issue in the parliament?

For that matter, why stop at abuse from within the churches? Wouldn't the precedent also cover anyone who has a grievance about anything feeling they can seek expedition of their complaint via a sympathetic member of Parliament?

What makes this case so different from the hundreds of others, where - when reconciliation/compensation from the Church is unsatisfactory - the complainant goes to police?

Are we in fact seeing here the alleged abused priest being used as a vehicle for Senator Xenophon's personal campaign against religion?
viz he has recently been vehement in his complaints about the Church of Scientology?

I personally hold no brief for religion and am beyond disgusted at the systemic abuse that has occurred in many of the churches, but I'm wondering here if we are in fact seeing an issue somewhat aligned to Andrew Wilkie's very personal vendetta about poker machines.

I don't know: perhaps we need some of our members of parliament to appoint themselves as guardians of the public morality. What do you believe?

It just seems to me that the raising of this issue in parliament in turn raises many more questions than what seemed to be the original intent of seeking justice for one priest.

PS Cynic made some really good points about the layers of abuse of power.
Ditto from Bellenuit the clarification that we are not talking about paedophilia here.

I'm reminded of the case some years ago now where, I think, Senator Heffernan made some very unpleasant sexual allegations against Justice Kirby. These were looked into and completely disproven, as I recall the episode. But in the meantime, an individual has had his reputation trashed and his very personal life paraded through the media.

 

[McLovin]

So, if we accept the above definition, it would seem Senator Xenophon was in fact acting within the accepted boundaries of parliamentary privilege.

Accusing someone of rape is not a "duty" of an MP. And even if it is, then what about protecting Mr Dempsey's rights (who is also a constituent) which under South Australian law means accused rapists names are not released until a guilty verdict.

It's disgraceful that a man has been tarred as a rapist without trial. Surely as a member of the legislature Mr Xenophon should be upholding this fundamental tenet of our democracy, not trampling on it.

 

[basilio]

Senator Xenaphon used Parliamentary privilege to force the Catholic Church to face up to a particularly distasteful episode that it wanted to string out for as long as possible. There is a very revealing interview published in a WA newspaper that might explain why the Senator was so fed up with the stalling tactics of the Adelaide Catholic Church.

Archbishop Hepworth said he was "saddened" by the way the matter was being played out.

"It is being played out now in a crude way and megaphone diplomacy often doesn't work, I know that from my politics," he told ABC radio.

Archbishop John Hepworth has revealed that in 2007 he told the Adelaide Archdiocese, including Archbishop Philip Wilson and Vicar General and outgoing Social Inclusion Commissioner David Cappo, of repeated abuse at the hands of three men, two of whom are deceased.

Archbishop Hepworth, 67, has revealed he was the victim of violent rapes at the hands of three priests beginning in 1960 when he was a 15-year-old studying to be a priest.

Claims against deceased priests were settled in Melbourne.

But claims relating to the third priest, who still runs a parish in SA and denies the claims, are not yet resolved.

Archbishop Hepworth said the processes in Adelaide and Melbourne were very different.

He said he offered the report from Melbourne to Monsignor Cappo to read but that did not happen.

"I actually offered for Monsignor Cappo to read the report from Melbourne in my presence, a lot of deeply personal stuff; it's a nearly a sixty-page report on all their weekends taping interviews with me and so on," he told ABC radio.

"He dipped into a bit and the diocese solicitor with him said: 'well, we are going to give this to the guy you've named'.".

"I said 'I can't give it to you as it stands, there is too much there. Why on Earth would you give him all this stuff'. He put it to one side and said `well, we are not going to read it'."

http://www.perthnow.com.au/news/nat...-public-xenophon/story-e6frg15u-1226135506880

 

[Tink]

Accusing someone of rape is not a "duty" of an MP. And even if it is, then what about protecting Mr Dempsey's rights (who is also a constituent) which under South Australian law means accused rapists names are not released until a guilty verdict.

It's disgraceful that a man has been tarred as a rapist without trial. Surely as a member of the legislature Mr Xenophon should be upholding this fundamental tenet of our democracy, not trampling on it.

Agree with your post.
Trial by media is not the way it should be.

If there is a law in place, shouldnt they be leading by example?

 

[McLovin]

Senator Xenaphon used Parliamentary privilege to force the Catholic Church to face up to a particularly distasteful episode that it wanted to string out for as long as possible. There is a very revealing interview published in a WA newspaper that might explain why the Senator was so fed up with the stalling tactics of the Adelaide Catholic Church.

Forget about the Catholic Church, if I think my broker is front running I don't report it to my broker. Since when did the Catholic Church become the arbiter of criminality? The police are who should be investigating this, not Sen Xenophon and certainly not the Catholic Church.

 

[Boggo]

Since when did the Catholic Church become the arbiter of criminality? The police are who should be investigating this, not Sen Xenophon and certainly not the Catholic Church.

Once again you have just proven that you are commenting on something that you have no understanding of

You do not understand or I would confidently say that have never heard of Canon Law (that also applies to a few other generic commentators on here too).

 

[McLovin]

Once again you have just proven that you are commenting on something that you have no understanding of

You do not understand or I would confidently say that have never heard of Canon Law (that also applies to a few other generic commentators on here too).

Show me the bit where the Catholic Church's internal law overrides Australian law.

I won't hold my breath.

 

[wayneL]

You do not understand or I would confidently say that have never heard of Canon Law .

It that like Sharia?

 

[Boggo]

It that like Sharia?

Could be worse Wayne if it is abused (not that that would ever happen ).

What commentator's on here don't understand is that it takes Parliamentary Privilege to comment on it.

 

[McLovin]

It that like Sharia?

Sharia law and Halakha (the Jewish equivalent) operate in Britain for civil matters if both parties agree, not much different to going to arbitration but with some different guidelines. For criminal matters there is one law. To claim that Canon law somehow supercedes the law of Australia or is in any way relevant to a case involving rape is somewhere between between burning witches at the stake and believing the Sun rotates around the Earth.

 

[Boggo]

Show me the bit where the Catholic Church's internal law overrides Australian law.

I won't hold my breath.

Instead of writing why not do some reading then you would not need to ask that question.

 

[McLovin]

Instead of writing why not do some reading then you would not need to ask that question.

Just so I understand your claim is that Canon law somehow precludes anyone in the Church from being charged outside of the Church?

 

[Julia]

Could be worse Wayne if it is abused (not that that would ever happen ).

What commentator's on here don't understand is that it takes Parliamentary Privilege to comment on it.

Instead of writing why not do some reading then you would not need to ask that question.

Boggo, perhaps you could just, for the sake of all of us who are ignorant of this Canon law, outline the situation as you see it.

 

[drsmith]

Canon law.

Canon law is the body of laws and regulations made or adopted by ecclesiastical authority, for the government of the Christian organization and its members.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canon_law

Does it override common law ?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_law
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_Australia

 

[McLovin]

Canon law.



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canon_law

Does it override common law ?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_law

I think you mean does it override Australia law. Common law is just a branch of law (judge made law), along with legislation. And the answer is absolutely not. But I'd be delighted to be proven wrong, that the English civil war and Glorious Revolution was just a waste of time and the Parliament is subordinate to the Church.

 

[Knobby22]

From today's ABC site.

"The Adelaide priest named as an alleged rapist by Senator Nick Xenophon has hit back, saying his reputation has been irreparably smeared and denigrated.

Senator Xenophon named Monsignor Ian Dempsey under parliamentary privilege earlier this month.

Now Monsignor Dempsey has written to Senator Xenophon to protest his innocence.

He says his Adelaide parishioners, Navy personnel, friends and family know him as an honourable and trustworthy chaplain.

"Hardly the accolades an alleged rapist would receive," he wrote.

"You have shot the wounded, you who proclaim to be an advocate of those who are hurting in our society."

Monsignor Dempsey said he had not been charged with any offence and had not been interviewed by the Archbishop's lawyers.

He said Senator Xenophon went ahead with naming and shaming him, relying on information from a single source and having refused offers from the Adelaide Archdiocese for a briefing."


Nick Xenaphon should apologise or he will lose all my respect.

 

[McLovin]

Nick Xenaphon should apologise or he will lose all my respect.

Bit late for an apology isn't it? Hey dude, sorry about the whole rape thing, friends?