B J Foster wrote in news:g978hd$439$2@aioe.org:
> HD wrote:
>> "B J Foster" wrote in message
>> news:g9724l$af5$1@aioe.org...
>>> David Moss wrote:
>>>> B J Foster wrote in
>>>> news:g94jqa$ii0$1@aioe.org:
>>>>
>>>>> bringyagrogalong wrote:
>>>>>> On Aug 27, 11:22 pm, David Moss
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>> bringyagrogalong wrote
>>>>>>> innews:af46da9f-6917-4abc-a198-9ccf783ff471@z11g2000prl.googlegro
>>>>>>> ups. com:
>>>>>>>> On Aug 27, 10:12 pm, David Moss
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> "Cruizin" wrote
>>>>>>>>> innews:6%atk.31754$IK1.3181@news-server.bigpond.net.au:
>>>>>>>>>> Any other organisation that was so riddled with paedophiles,
>>>>>>>>>> protects paedophiles from prosecution, and generally condones
>>>>>>>>>> paedophiles would be closed down.
>>>>>>>>>> Why is the catholic church so different?
>>>>>>>>> Size.
>>>>>>>>> If you group together a sufficient number of people under one
>>>>>>>>> name chances
>>>>>>>>> are you will find paedophiles among them. If you scrutinise
>>>>>>>>> the number of people who call themselves Catholic it is
>>>>>>>>> statistically ivevitable you will
>>>>>>>>> find paedophiles among them. Sad but true.
>>>>>>>>> Shutting down the Catholics would make as much sense as
>>>>>>>>> shutting down Australia because some Australians are
>>>>>>>>> paedophiles.
>>>>>>>> It's just that it's endemic within the Catholic Church.
>>>>>>> Thats just a rephrasing of "its endemic within a sufficiently
>>>>>>> large population sample".
>>>>>> It's just that paedophilia in "a sufficiently large population
>>>>>> sample" pales in comparison to the Catholic Church.
>>>>>>
>>>>> David is getting stuck in the rut of attacking the fallacy of
>>>>> generalisation & not addressing the topic.
>>>>> Yes, we know that it is incorrect to conclude that "Catholic
>>>>> priests are paedophiles" just because *some* are.
>>>> The question was about the Catholic church, not Catholic priests.
>>>> It was a general question that you want to make specific. I can do
>>>> that.
>>> Okay, the original poster wrote:
>>>
>>> Any other organisation that was so riddled with paedophiles,
>>> protects paedophiles from prosecution, and generally condones
>>> paedophiles would be closed down.
>>>
>>> Why is the catholic church so different?
>>>
>>> What have the Bishop's got on the politicians?
>>>
>>>
>>> The question is essentially, 'Why is the Catholic church not subject
>>> to the same laws (as the rest of us)?'
>>
>> They are. But first, you can't close down the Catholic Church the
>> same as you can't close down the Ford Motor Company.
>
> Why not?
We cannot close down a multinational organisation like Ford. We could
possibly stop Ford trading in Australia, but we could not shut it down.
The same applies to the Catholic Church, but we can't even stop it
"trading" in Australia because of s116 of the constitution.
"116 Commonwealth not to legislate in respect of religion
The Commonwealth shall not make any law for establishing any
religion, or for imposing any religious observance, or for
prohibiting the free exercise of any religion, and no religious test
shall be required as a qualification for any office or public trust
under the Commonwealth."
>> Secondly, if you could close
>> down an organization, you don't stop perverts from being paedophiles
>> and you don't stop them living in Australia.
>> A very large number of Paedophiles go to poor Asian countries to
>> satisfy their perverted needs.
>> Do we close down Qantas?
>>
>
> If Qantas management were aware of a specific crime and did not report
> it, or if they concealed evidence of it, then they would be guilty of
> perverting (nice word that!) the course of justice.
>
> In such a situation, do we close down Qantas? No. Do we charge their
> management with a crime? Absolutely.
Again its a matter of scale. Qantas knows that it is statistically
inevitable than some of the people it transports to and from Asia are
paedophiles. If you transport enough people you will end up transporting
a paedophile.
Even if someone rang up and alleged BJ Foster was a paedophile, Qantas
has no obligation to act on the allegation.
If Qantas management came into possession of evidence Proving BJ intended
to commit paedophilic acts at the destination however, they would be
required to report the matter to the police.
Returning to the religious arena, a church official may recieve
allegations that a person is a paedophile. An allegation is not proof
however. Even if a paedophile is exposed through a church enquiry, is it
best dealt with as a criminal matter, or should the organisation treat it
as an OH&S issue and try to deal with the matter internally?
A similar situation may be when an organisation becomes aware one of its
members uses illegal drugs. It could report the matter to the police and
destroy the life of the member, or it could put in place measures to
rehabilitate the offender. The AFL released a policy leaning toward the
latter earlier today.
My own opinion is that reporting even allegations of paedophilia to the
police should be mandatory with punitive penalties for organisations and
managers who failed to do so.
Report em all and let the court sort em out!
--
David Moss
Personal opinion only
The Australian Politics Resource
http://politics.sunnybar.dynip.com |