Pell is the little guy, but who loses if he wins his freedom? An interesting comment by currencylad over at Catallaxy this morning:
Advocacy groups, real victims of other clerics and generic anti-Catholic dullards insist that his lawful pursuit of acquittal on appeal amounts to secondary molestation. That’s the unctuous pretext anyway.
The actual motivation for the claimed nexus between Pell defending himself and victims being traumatised has very little to do with concern for abuse survivors. It mostly has to do with a deep-seated anxiety in Pell haters that he might eventually come out on top.
If all of the perversions of justice that led to his solitary confinement are overturned, the perverters will be at risk of opprobrium, sanctions and — most dreaded of all — political humiliation. Questions would be asked, people would be sued, reputations would be damaged, money would be lost and books would be pulped. Never before in Australian history have so many powerful people been so heavily invested in a miscarriage of justice. Wilfully miscast as a humbled heavyweight, big man Pell is in fact the little guy in this story.
This is a test of the Australian justice system. If the Australian deep state really hates you — perhaps because you are a high-ranking Christian official and have spoken against the carbon dioxide theory of global warming — can they throw you into prison on trumped-up or dubious charges? Would you be afforded the same system of justice as everybody else, or would the system be so biased against you that you’d never really get a fair hearing?
To what extent is this a political trial of an opponent of the Australian deep state? It is important that justice be seen to be done here, whichever way it goes.
It reminds me of the “suppressed memory” trials of the 1980s. People were sent to prison because they’d been accused by someone who had been coached and encouraged to “remember” some un-provable incident involving sexual misconduct.