Amanda Vanstone from exactly 4 weeks ago, May 29 on this.
Note these few sentences: “What we are seeing now is far worse than a simple assessment of guilt.” — “..The public arena is being used to trash a reputation and probably prevent a fair trial..”– “Isn’t it normal to try to ensure a person can get a fair trial by keeping prejudicial, untested material out of the public arena?”
“….The media frenzy surrounding Cardinal George Pell is the lowest point in civil discourse… in my lifetime. I’m 64.
What we are seeing is no better than a lynch mob from the dark ages. Some in the media think they are above the law both overseas and at home. Deep pockets of your boss or lesser pockets on your victim, build bravado. If your assets aren’t on the line you can trash a reputation with gay abandon.
What we are seeing now is far worse than a simple assessment of guilt. The public arena is being used to trash a reputation and probably prevent a fair trial. Perhaps the rule of law sounds as if it’s too esoteric to worry about. Rephrase: how would you like to throw out your own right to a fair assessment of whether you should be charged in the first place together with the right to a fair trial if you are charged?
If there were a real prospect of Pell being charged one might have thought authorities would have sought an injunction to prevent the publication of a recently published book on him and certain allegations. Isn’t it normal to try to ensure a person can get a fair trial by keeping prejudicial, untested material out of the public arena? I’m no fan of organised religion but George Pell’s trial by media has to stop