#MeToo

Me Too has spread to the Catholic Church. Very sad, very ugly.
Print Email Facebook Twitter More
Priests held nuns in 'sexual slavery', Pope Francis admits
Updated Wed at 10:36am

Space to play or pause, M to mute, left and right arrows to seek, up and down arrows for volume.

Video: Pope Francis discusses abuse in Catholic Church (ABC News)
Related Story: Pope Francis becomes first pontiff to visit Arabian Peninsula
Related Story: 'Something that worries me': Pope tells homosexuals to leave
Related Story: Pope accepts Cardinal McCarrick resignation following sex abuse scandal
Pope Francis has for the first time publicly acknowledged the scandal of priests and bishops sexually abusing nuns and says he is committed to doing more to fight the problem.

Key points:

• Pope Francis said he wanted more progress in the Vatican's efforts to address the problem
• Vatican Magazine said some nuns were forced to abort priests' children
• The Pope said mistreatment of women was a "cultural problem"

Speaking to reporters on the papal plane, he noted that Pope Benedict XVI had taken action against a France-based order after some of its religious sisters had been reduced to "sexual slavery" at the hands of the priest who founded the order and other priests.
..
In November, the organisation representing all of the world's female Catholic religious orders, the International Union of Superiors General, publicly denounced the "culture of silence and secrecy" that prevented nuns from speaking out and urged sisters to report abuse to their superiors and police.

Just last week, the women's magazine of the Vatican newspaper L'Osservatore Romano identified the clerical culture of the all-powerful clergy as the culprit. The magazine, "Women Church World", noted the scandal involves a corollary: nuns being forced to abort the priests' children.
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-02...s,-bishops-have-sexually-abused-nuns/10784118

So poor ratings on 9's morning show, wasn't just a bloke thing, god knows why anyone watches the dribble.

https://www.msn.com/en-au/entertain...o-find-an-audience/ar-BBTgMFY?ocid=spartandhp

Tisme said:

Geoffrey Rush had a win today and that dick who ruined the Courier Mail got his ...hooray.

For too long Christopher Dore has felt entitled to smear and coerce without being held accountable. He supervised the degeneration of QLD's print press to the point that even rusted on Liberal gave up reading the tripe.

Click to expand...

Sounds as though Geoffrey Rush, has had a win against the Daily Telegraph today, over sexual harassment claims.

https://www.theguardian.com/media/l...corp-defamation-case-verdict-handed-down-live

From the article:
Wigney has said that he is “not satisfied on the balance of probabilities” that the incidents the Daily Telegraph’s lawyers alleged actually occurred.

Norvill’s evidence was not credible, nor was that of fellow actor Mark Leonard Winter, who backed Norvill.

Wigney says his judgment is over 200 pages long.

But in summary: “[The newspaper] did not make out their truth defence.”

More to come.

Geoffrey Rush awarded $850k with more to come for loss of income.

"This was, in all the circumstances, a recklessly irresponsible piece of sensational journalism of the worst kind. The very worst kind," Justice Wigney said.

Well maybe the press will calm down a bit, rather than trail by media.IMO

The Harvey Weinsten jury is deliberating on its verdict.
This story from one of his personal assistants bears telling.

Harvey Weinstein's former personal assistant Rowena Chiu watches sexual assault trial she never had

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-02...harvey-weinstein-trial-she-never-had/11980370
https://www.theguardian.com/film/2020/feb/19/harvey-weinstein-trial-jury-day-two-deliberations

Well it looks like another big payout for defamation, Craig McLachlan found not guilty, he has lost a lot of work due to the allegations.

I have no brief for Harvey Weinstein, he sounds like a slime, but a judge has ruled that evidence from witnesses who were not involved in a particular trial should not have been admitted in that trial.

The same happened to Rolf Harris and could have led to his conviction , but that evidence of "pattern of behaviour" was allowed.

So what's going on ?

I always thought that it was a legal principle that only evidence relating to the offence under consideration is allowed. At least one judge seems to be upholding a principle of law.

SirRumpole said:

I have no brief for Harvey Weinstein, he sounds like a slime, but a judge has ruled that evidence from witnesses who were not involved in a particular trial should not have been admitted in that trial.

The same happened to Rolf Harris and could have led to his conviction , but that evidence of "pattern of behaviour" was allowed.

So what's going on ?

I always thought that it was a legal principle that only evidence relating to the offence under consideration is allowed. At least one judge seems to be upholding a principle of law.

Rose McGowan, Ashley Judd and #MeToo founder react to the overturning of Harvey Weinstein's rape conviction

The ruling by a New York high court has been called a major step back for survivors of sexual abuse, with some fearing it could deter other victims from coming forward in similar cases.

www.abc.net.au

Click to expand...

It seems to me that judges in the United States (and UK), as evidenced by several recent cases there, are constrained neither by the letter nor the spirit of the law.

My experiences here on a very much smaller scale indicate the same.

Judges are simply not interested in the law, whether criminal or civil per se, unless it suits them and can indulge in off label interpretations of the same with absolute impunity.

Without t commenting on the Weinstein case in particular, I have absolutely zero... Actually less than zero, faith in the legal system, especially for those of us without *very* substantial means.