 |
Sam Roggeveen has the privilege of being the first correspondent to take up an issue connected to one of the comments on Judica Me, Deus since it appeared on the internet, 29 August 2002. Sam is one of the contributors to a recent collection of essays on the aftermath of 11 September 2001, Blaming Ourselves, and has recently been invited to present a paper on Just War in the Age of Asymmetry at the Australian Defence College.
1 September 2002
Congratulations. It looks very impressive...I'm interested to know what
you think of an argument I heard often in the aftermath of the Pell
allegations. Namely, if the PM believes it is appropriate to come to Pell's
defence before he has heard any evidence, why was this courtesy not extended
to Justice Kirby when Senator Heffernan made his allegations?
Sam Roggeveen
Editor's reply:
My immediate reaction to that criticism when it was aired at the time was:
'Why should it be extended? Why should he speak on behalf of Kirby in the
same manner?' And why would one call it a 'courtesy'?
How and why does a private judgment of A's innocence of a particular charge create an obligation to pronounce a similarly private judgment on a particular charge against B without more ado? Wouldn't the motivation of a private (unofficial) judgment in the cases of either Archbishop Pell or Justice Kirby be based on one's estimation of that person's character, one's friendship for that person, the knowledge one would have of the case, and other such factors. It seems to me there is no necessary relationship between the two cases in the particular circumstances and in the context being spoken of. Howard's moral and legal duty in both cases was not to condemn publicly before the cases were subjected to the official procedures. There was no obligation to speak on behalf of either Pell or Kirby. Howard simply chose to do so for the particular reasons he had – as we all choose at times to utter opinions about some people and not about others.
Perhaps one would object that Howard should have been even-handed. But that assumes the PC idea of even-handedness: if you pronounce on A's innocence, you must automatically pronounce on B's innocence. Apart from the evident fallaciousness of the argument, in practice it is an idea they typically do not apply consistently (see below). The everyday understanding of even-handedness is the application of the same standard where it is due. In other words, if you are convinced on a number of grounds that a person is innocent of a particular charge and you say so, then in similar circumstances you should act in the same way, at least for sake of consistency. I am not able to see into John Howard's mind and therefore am unaware of his motivations. But if he was convinced of Archbishop Pell's innocence and not sure of Kirby's, and he has respect and admiration for the Archbishop and not for Kirby, then he cannot be accused of not being even-handed in his actions.
I have to wonder why the idea is so abhorrent to the PC mind that John Howard could be convinced of the innocence of Archbishop Pell and not have any particular view of Kirby's innocence, or even believe privately that Kirby was guilty? In which case, he would have no reason to say anything publicly about the Kirby case.
Another point to consider is the PC-class's reaction to the Heffernan charges against Justice Kirby. I suggest people return to the news report on that matter and count up how many of Kirby's like-minded friends in their official legal and political capacities rushed to the willing media to defend Kirby and vociferously to denounce Heffernan – while the Prime Minister's judgment quite evidently was the private judgment of John Howard the person.
On the other hand, where were Archbishop Pell's defenders from among Kirby's supporters? Hardly to be seen. I have to point out that Terry O'Gorman, President of the Council of Civil Liberties, with whom I have sharp differences on the nature of human and civil rights, had the decency to be consistent in the Pell case and to point out that the processes of justice had completely broken down and that the Archbishop's reputation would be forever trashed.
As usual, the weight is well and truly on the side of the members of the PC-class. Kirby has absolutely no need of John Howard's public support. In fact, things being equal and there being no propaganda advantage to be reaped, it is likely he and his friends would on balance find it objectionable.