Oremus

Some of us are not surprised to find practising Christians amongst the ranks of serving politicians. It has been noted that newly-promoted SA Ministers Jack Snelling and Bernard Finnigan are both from the fold of the Roman Church.

Indeed quite a lot was made in weeks before their elevation of the fact that Snelling had been a strident pro-lifer whilst at Adelaide University (weren't we all)

Surprise, surprise that a Roman catholic should not be a supporter of abortion on demand.

Whilst such an attitude is very much against the spirit of the age, it would seem that we live in a time when it is recognised that not everyone supports abortion and that this does not immediately disqualify them from having views on any other subject
However it was interesting to hear the tail-end of an interview on ABC local radio this week when Matt Abraham asked them both: "Is it true you are both Latin Mass Catholics?"

You could hear the radio audience wonder what all this might be about!

Abraham, himself a practising Catholic, never asks a question without knowing the answer but I found myself wondering if this was of more interest to him than to anyone else.

Snelling did not avoid the question. Finnigan (quite rightly in my opinion) said he didn't think that where he went to Church was anyone's business. I don't quite agree with that statement.

And Abraham to give him his due did say that he thought the fact that this was a manifestly very conservative position. I think he has a point.

Snelling (I think; but it may have been Finnigan) did make some observation that it didn't matter if he was a card-carrying Cranmer Prayer Book Anglican! (Most Roman Catholics are not so aware of Anglicanism) he didn't seem to make the connection that Michael Atkinson who is a frequent caller to his program and a former Labor Attorney General is/was such..indeed I think a 'traditional' Anglican.

I personally think it's OK for people's strongly held personal views whether religious or philosophical to inform their political decision-making. Indeed it would be surprising and hypocritical if it did otherwise.

Should this be trumpeted? Not necessarily. But nor should its disclosure be avoided.

Victory...sort of

The Attorney has apparently heard the will of the people (here).
I still think that if you say something you should be prepared to stand up and be counted, but practicalities recognise that some are more vulnerable than others.

Certain sense of irony

SA Attorney General, Michael Atkinson, doesn't like nasty comment. Who of us does?

We now seem to have laws, leading up to our state election (see here) which will (as usual) require people who make electoral comment in letters to the ed to identify themselves with an appropriate name and an address. The new laws particularly extend this to internet weblogs...in particular I guess news ltd's Adelaide Now which gone into conniptions about it today. And rightly so.

I am not averse to people being encouraged to speak out in their own name rather than hiding behind pseudonym or anonym...but

The Attorney thinks that the new provisions will extend to Facebook and Twitter. And that political commentators in such would/should be required to divulge addresses.

One would have thought that at a time when a man has just been convicted for murder of a girl he allegedly stalked on the internet, that we should be discouraging people from putting personal information out there like that. But you know, the aim is maybe not to get the information out there but to stifle debate. This at least is the press's story and they are sticking to it.

There are other ironies too, when pollies are allowed to say what they like under so-called "Parliamentary Privilege" in order that they may be able to speak without fear or favour...I wonder where the ordinary person may be encouraged to speak with such boldness.

And when politicians can be indemnified at taxpayers' expense, even when they are found to have spoken inappropriately or innacurately...why this dogged pursuit of the little blogger.

Fortunately the Electoral Commissioner does not seem to think the law reaches as far as the Attorney thinks.

My issue is not that vile slanderers should be allowed to say what they like, but that this sort of tactic scares people into being overly cautious. Few amongst us, could afford legal action against one who is highly paid and/or indemnified. It borders on bullying the little chap into silence.

I blogged on this only a few days ago (here) in regard to another matter. Again I say it, it is so often those who are outrageously outspoken themselves who want to intimidate others into being quiet

The locus of evil

I am always faintly bemused by the polemic of SA Attorney-General Michael Atkinson who this week declaimed that some members of the so called Gang of 49 were evil, beyond rehabilitation and better off behind bars. He has been more or less backed up by Premier Rann..(here)...ahhh "law and order" what better policy issue when the Opposition seem to be gaining a bit of ground.

My question to the Attorney is whether 'evil' is an appropriate legal descriptor. It seems to me it is not. It may be theological (and Atkinson is a sort-of Anglican) or it may be emotive but it is surely not useful when talking about what certain criminals are doing or what should be done about then.

It must also make prison reformers fume when a Labor Attorney declares that prison cannot at least attempt to rehabilitate the young offender. The offensive language, too, of other State Ministers who suggest that criminals should be racked, packed and stacked...or what ever...helps us to realise that the attitude to prison policy in this state is not exactly what you would call 'progressive'. Indeed it seems positively Victorian.