May 28, 2003


I got your hypocrisy right here:

NSW Premier Bob Carr today accused Liberal MP Charlie Lynn of abusing parliamentary privilege by alleging a government minister sexually assaulted a teenage boy, but said he would still refer the matter for investigation.

By “abusing Parliamentary privilege”, does Carr mean anything similar to his Labor pal Lindsay Tanner drawing attention to Peter Hollingworth’s rape case?

Mr Lynn last night told the NSW upper house he had documents relating to a police investigation of pedophilia allegations against a senior member of Mr Carr's cabinet.

Mr Carr told reporters he found the allegations extraordinary and incredible but would nonetheless ask the Police Integrity Commission (PIC) to investigate.

The alleged time of the incident - during the 1994-97 Wood royal commission into police - meant that three parliaments and two or three police commissioners had served since it was supposed to have occurred, Mr Carr said.

"And we heard of it for the first time last night," he said.

Astonishing! Yet the allegations against Hollingworth were nearly 40 years old, and that never halted his accusers. In fact, the truth or otherwise of the ancient charges didn’t bother them much at all. As the SMH reported:

The new allegations, regardless of their truth, are likely to fuel arguments that Dr Hollingworth is now so legally entangled in sex scandals dating from his previous career as to be unable to fulfil his role.

Posted by Tim Blair at May 28, 2003 08:09 PM

Ahhh, the sweet stench of hypocrisy ....

Posted by: Indole Ring at May 28, 2003 at 09:25 PM

It's not hypocrisy unless Carr had a role in Tanner's outburst or supported it afterwards.

Otherwise, it's just dumb to suggest that a state politician is responsible for the conduct of a federal politician, merely because they belong to the same party.

Isn't the only worthwhile point here that Carr is right and Tanner was wrong?

Posted by: Mork at May 29, 2003 at 10:04 AM

Not hypocrisy, Mark? Let us see.
To state the obvious, the `scandal ' surrounding Hollingworth was nothing but persecution of Hollingworth.The incident 40 years ago and Hollingworth's diffcult problem, what to do about the culprit, was just an excuse for navel gazing _ love me - I have a pretty conscience' `consensus compliant ' psuedo-middle class prats to tear Hollingworth from limb to limb.

Then there was only the spectacle of Tanner's abuse of parlaimentary privilege and contempt of a Supreme Court.Bob Brown, the unctious nasty twit,was also up to his eyeballs, once again, flinging mud.

To cap it all of, the ALP did hold Howard responsible for Hollingworth: how could Howard have appointed such am man to the job.Beattie and Carr walk free, having belonged to a party which revealed its true colours in the shameful treatment they meted out to Hollingworth.
Crean used a suggestive word against Hollingworth,
that word sits more aptly against the ALP, any other MP and the whining pseudo-middle classes who cheered the spectacle.Humbugs ductile, are adjectives too polite to serve as adequate desrption of not only men, but women, who have proved themselves worthy of regard as mere savages; they do fit the Hobbesian Brute `stereotype' rather well.

Posted by: d at May 29, 2003 at 10:22 AM

I think Mork's comment stands, d. The ALP is not one homogenous lump with every member being party to the actions of other members.

And what of the difference in treatment by some in the Liberal Party of the Kirby allegations and the Hollingsworth allegations?

Posted by: Tiu Fu Fung at May 29, 2003 at 11:02 AM

Concur on the Kirby affair, Tiu, that aslo was outrageous.

But did did you notice a curious twist. The attorney general Victoria called for the federal a.g. to intervene. What was wrong with this forthright call? The same a.g. idly stood by while a bunch of cretins overthrew a chief magistrate.The a.g. declared it would be wrong for him and his office to interfere with the judiciary. How curious, Mr. Hulls.

Yes, one made a mistake by way of generalisation, allowing some in the Alp also found the campaign outrageous . It does not alter, however, the party in parlaiment was trying to pin Howard by association, holding Howard responsible for an appointment which Crean reflected on by that short phrase, moral turpitude. And it doesn't alter the fact it was a concocted campaign which involved a thoroughly ruthless effort to ruin Hollingworth.
And to be sure, Tiu, one has observed tarring with the same brush in other witchhunts which have been ruinous for a large number of individuals who were the targets of baseless allegations.In short, tough, the ALP shouldn't have done what was done in its name - let us be clear about this for that is precisely , presumambly waht the parlaimenbtary wing of a party i8s responsible for - actions committed in the name of its party - it sbroader membership, to visit the recent comments on Beattie and Carr also.

What Tanner, Crean and some others did wasn't some mere whim .If ALP members are disgusted by those acrtions they have the measure, to replace those members.
There is one who definitely should not be sitting in parlaiment, someone who was intimately involved in abusing a state parlaiment to pin the opposition leader at the time via P.E.The ALP is condoning that equally outrageous matter by letting that MP hold a federal seat.
If it is any consolation Tiu, to show one is even handed those members on the right who indulged in the skuldugeery against Hollingworth are no less Hobbesian Brutes and should be rolled by their party too.

Posted by: d at May 29, 2003 at 11:35 AM

Tanner's behaviour was disgusting - Carr should have said so, as should every other politician in the country.

What seems to have been forgotten is that Mrs Jarmyn was profoundly concerned about the possibility of publicity - her lawyers took out a suppression order to keep her name out of the papers.

As far as I'm aware Tanner made no attempt to seek her family's approval before he leaked the story. Any politician that fails to condemn his actions shares his guilt.

Posted by: Simon Roberts at May 29, 2003 at 12:19 PM

Riiiight . . . do I need to point out to you the offenses for which various senior Lib/Nat politicians would responsible if "fails to condemn" were to become the standard?

Folks: here's a useful exercise to that helps prevent stupid statements. Imagine that the same events had occurred with the identity of the political parties reversed. Would you say the same thing?

Posted by: Mork at May 29, 2003 at 12:40 PM

OK, let's do that.

How about the Heffernan/Kirby incident?

Posted by: Simon Roberts at May 29, 2003 at 01:17 PM

Yes, Mark, one would. Indeed, one said so in reply to Tiu. There is this ditinction: liberals who did so did so on their own but: it was not a party political position which is the crux of what Tanner, Crean et al engaged in.

Posted by: d at May 29, 2003 at 02:08 PM

Correction to last post: `...their own bat:...'

Posted by: d at May 29, 2003 at 02:09 PM

"There is this ditinction: liberals who did so did so on their own bat: it was not a party political position which is the crux of what Tanner, Crean et al engaged in."


Posted by: Mork at May 29, 2003 at 02:19 PM

Huh? Let us rephrase: those liberals did so on their own account.Public comment they made was not a party position.If you examine the record, Mark, you will find that to be true, noting also those liberals mainly ventured to show their spleen on Sunday morning chat programmes . Nor is it too subtle what the Federal ALp did in the parlaiment.The evidence for what was said and done are as bare as the bones of a dingo in the simpson bloody desert.

If, however, it had also been a liberal party position then, certainly,would also apply the same remarks to the liberal party.

There is now ambiguity in the concerted concocted campaign against Hollingworth and the attempt to , adventitiously, pin Howard to it too.
You did read my remarks on the Kirby affair, one presumes?

Posted by: d at May 29, 2003 at 02:32 PM

Blast, another correction:
`There is no ambiguity....'

Posted by: d at May 29, 2003 at 02:34 PM

d - I can't for the life of me work out why you characterise Tanner's actions as "a party political position" and the actions of the various liberals who've engaged in smears behind the veil of parliamentary privilege having "done so off their own bat".

What is the difference?

Posted by: Mork at May 29, 2003 at 02:46 PM

A difference wider than the grand Canyon.When a party is committed to such a savage exercise, each of the members - and one is restricting this to parlaimentary wings - are complicit. That cannot be said of those acting on their own account - on the other hand, if a party condones such action by such individuals then it is also damnable.And there-in lies the distinction, the crux of what the ALP did in and out of thefederal parlaiment.

How dare overpaid overindulged upstarts set out to ruin some-one, using parlaiment to do it.That goes for those liberal MPs who should be rolled on that count too.Ditto , the P.E. affair of W.A., the Kirby Affair too.

Posted by: d at May 29, 2003 at 02:54 PM

d - I'm still no wiser about where the difference lies, apart from the fact that you say it exists.

Posted by: Mork at May 29, 2003 at 02:56 PM

The word complict has force in commonlaw.X may not have been physically involved in the commission of a crime but x, having been complicit in some way to the crime is guilty of a crime because of that complicity , even guilty of the same charge raised on the count against that action. Complicity is not, for example, `conspiracy theory'.
This adds further force, per illumination, to the distinction.

I'm not sure what more can be said, except to reiterate, the record is clear cut, it was displayed, there is no presumption as to what was done, no second guessing, the facts unfolded before the public gaze, who did what and what was done.Just as in the case of the affairs P.E., Kirby, and the former chief magistrate of Victoria.The ALP dug a deep hole for itself over Iraq and managed, in the twinkling of an eye to repeat the exercise but , this time round, against Hollingworth.How much more crystal clear does it have to be before calling such conduct for what it was?

Posted by: d at May 29, 2003 at 03:19 PM

Well, that's great, d, but I must have missed a few of these key facts.

If you're not inclined to educate me, let's leave it here.

Posted by: Mork at May 29, 2003 at 03:46 PM

While you are on smear campaigns;

Why isn't anti Hollingworth campaigner Hetty Johnston now under the fierce media glare?

She was a director of the Liz Mullinar ASCA anti child sex abuse group that Hollingworth withdrew his support from last year due to their support of recovered memory therapy.

Hetty befriended Annie Jarmyn and is said to have counselled her for 15 months - during which time I believe Annie identified Hollingworth as her rapist from an old photo.

Did Hetty use repressed memory therapy to convince Annie that Hollingworth was her rapist?

How responsible is Hetty for Annie's death?

If I was one of Annie's family I'd be checking up on Hetty and her gang before I went after Hollingworth.

Posted by: Elizabeth Thompson at May 29, 2003 at 03:47 PM

Agreed Mark, to calling it quits, believe we have hammered most of the points and byways to a standstill.
Pleasure, the debate, though grave the matter.

Posted by: d at May 29, 2003 at 04:15 PM

d, his name is Mork, of "Mork and Mindy" fame. The only "Mark" I've seen in any of Tim's comments threads is me, of "Mark and... er, um..." fame.

Posted by: mark at May 30, 2003 at 01:37 AM

Apologies Mark: the o in mork reads on the screen like an a - too small a lettering, i hope - or I'll have to eat a truck load of carrots this weekend -yuk.

Posted by: d at May 30, 2003 at 12:45 PM