Posted on 03/04/2002 5:17:18 PM PST by vannrox
Monday March 4, 8:15 PM
Australia considers inquiry into child abuse row
CANBERRA (Reuters) - Australia may call a formal inquiry into child sexual abuse to try to quell a scandal surrounding the queen's envoy, who is accused of downplaying abuse which occurred while he was Anglican archbishop.
The controversy dogging Governor-General Peter Hollingworth, the official representative of Britain's Queen Elizabeth, has sparked a constitutional crisis in Australia as opponents push for the first-ever termination of an envoy's five-year appointment.
The monarch is Australia's head of state and the governor-general has the power to dismiss the government, although that has happened only once, in 1975.
Australian Prime Minister John Howard has said he would consider a royal commission into child sexual abuse if he was convinced it would help raise awareness without turning into a witch-hunt against Hollingworth.
"If I was completely satisfied it was going to advance the cause of helping victims and preventing it from occurring, I think (an inquiry) is important," Howard told reporters at the weekend.
Opposition politicians, victims' groups, children's charities and welfare workers have lined up against Hollingworth to demand his resignation from the nation's top unelected office for comments he made downplaying child sex abuse in the church.
Hollingworth is accused of protecting priests and teachers accused of child sex abuse in his diocese during an 11-year stint as archbishop which spanned the 1990s, and of suggesting in recent comments that one 14-year-old victim provoked the abuse.
He has since apologised for the comments, saying he had misunderstood the issue, and said he would approach child sexual abuse differently if he had a second chance.
CULTURE OF SECRECY
While the pressure on Hollingworth reached a crescendo during last week's visit by the queen, her departure on Sunday is expected swing the focus back to Howard, who has refused to suggest firing Hollingworth over the scandal.
The Anglican church has already said it would conduct an independent inquiry into the church's handling of child sex abuse during Hollingworth's tenure as archbishop of Brisbane.
Hollingworth abandoned the job in June after the prime minister appointed him governor-general.
But while victims' groups said a royal commission was needed to address the culture of secrecy and mismanagement of sexual abuse, they warned an inquiry would not replace calls for Hollingworth's immediate resignation.
"We don't need a royal commission to know what to do about Peter Hollingworth. The facts are on the table, the evidence is clear and plain," Hetty Johnston, president of the Brisbane-based People's Alliance Against Child Sexual Abuse, told Reuters.
"This isn't going to replace the demand from the Australian public that Peter Hollingworth be relieved of his position."
A royal commission is the highest level of government inquiry in Australia, with the power to subpoena unwilling witnesses.
Opposition Labor leader Simon Crean reiterated calls for the prime minister to terminate Hollingworth's appointment, saying moves by charity and professional groups to dump him as their patron has hurt the office of governor-general.
"Daily we see withdrawals of endorsement for the governor-general. It's clearly impacting on the office. That's not good for the country," Crean told reporters.
Maybe try using candy first? Sicko's
Second, the furor isn't about sexual abuse of children (not once you scratch the surface, anyway), it's about the lefties being furious that semi-conservative John Howard's Liberal party won last year's national election after being written off by the pinko press (which is pretty much every paper and columnist in the country).
Third, a refendum to switch Australian from a constitutional monarchy to a republic was defeated. The majority of Australians support a republic but it ended up as a three-way choice: (1) an elected president (2) an appointed president or (3) keep the Queen as the symbolic head of state. Howard wanted the queen to say and was responsible for pushing the other two options, which split the vote and saw Her Majesty carry the day.
Now, it's payback time. The thwarted republicans, multiculturalists and newsroom commissars of correct thought are using the governor general flap to beat up Howard. It's sad and pathetic -- especially when you consider that the allegedly abused "child" is now a woman 60 years old. The anglican priest who seduced her was 27 and she was 14, and they rekindled their affair many years later, even living in sin.
Doesn't sound much like what's been going in Boston when you know the details, does it? No apple-cheeked little boys in sight.
The hypocrisy becomes evven more galling when you consider that a nice lefty, secular welfare agency in Victoria has been helping kids to sniff glue in a special room they set up. Out of the lefties, hardly a peek. But a man of the cloth does a little cassock lifting back when Eisenhower was president, and it's a national disgrace etc etc etc.
Poor fella, my country!
Me? I like the idea of a president who's a superanuated sports star or an aboriginal ballerina or someone sort of high-minded and harmless, uplifting individual who epitomises Australia's young, bold and sensitive spirit etc., etc., etc., He would open bridges, hand out prizes to smart schoolkids, and hold receptions in big rooms with lots of antiques to keep visiting dignitaries out of trouble.
But the ideal president wouldn't have any power. The sort of president I favor would be a human rubber stamp. He would sign whatever legislation was put in front of him by parliament, and then go visit a hospital or something.
That would mean decisions would continue to be made in parliament, not in an executive branch -- and in parliament, the prime minister has to stand up every day and answer questions and account for himself. Could you imagine how long Clinton would have lasted if the US had the Westminister system. His party underlings would have dumped him quick smart rather than face the embarrassment of having to stand officially nehind him.
The presidential system works for the U.S. but I don't see the advantage in Australia adopting anything like it. There's no precedent and no real need. As to a two-party system, Australia already has one. The lower house -- coincidentally called the House of Reps -- is elected by district. The equally originaly named Senate is where the minor parties enter the equation, because it is elected by proportional representation -- 10 senators for each state. In tasmania (pop 400,000 or so), this means almost every pub has its own elected representative. But since Tasmanians mostly have two heads, they only need to elect five of them in any case!
The Liberal name reflects the classic definition of the word, not its corrupted and besmirched contemporary usage. The opposition is the Labor Party, spelled for some unknown reason in US style without the customary "u."
A few more years of savings and I'll be down, looking forward to hitting Brisbane, Surfer's Paradise, Sydney, Melbourne, Adelaide, and of course Perth! Not crazy about those blue-ring octopi or box jellyfish, however, so I'll pass on reef diving.
Now if you can set me up with your gold medal ski jump girl, I'll be down this week!
I'm flying back in abt. two weeks (I'm based here in NYC). If someone could fix me up with the ski jump gal, I'd be there faster, too -- although she wouldn't be doing too much jhumping after the wife had broken her legs!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.