Australian Censorship
Current Affairs, Dialogs June 22nd, 2007An interesting twist on the freedom of speech debate that we have from time to time.
The Australian Green Party have succeeded in passing a motion calling for Cardinal Pell to be interrogated by parliamentary committee on a charge of contempt of parliament.
Cardinal Pell had announced that Catholic MP’s who voted in favour of therapeutic cloning and stem-cell research would suffer religious consequences (quite possibly including excommunication). Incidentally a majority of the MP’s ignored his call and voted in favour.
But now before the debate goes to the upper house, where it is expected to be challenged, Cardinal Pell has been called to account. The charge of contempt of parliament in Australia is considered a serious offence and can carry a prison sentence of up to 25 years if proved.
Civil Liberties groups are supporting the Cardinal’s right to express a religious opinion on a matter of medical ethics, calling the charge of contempt “Absurd”.
On a relevent aside the colour of a Cardinals cassock and biretta are red/scarlet, and symbolizes that in accordance with their rank in the Church they should be willing to shed their blood for their faith. Although it would be idiotic to imprison the Cardinal on this charge, it would (as devils advocate) be an excellent testimony to the strength of the Cardinals faith and opinion on this matter to be made (as it were) a martyr. I dare say he isn’t losing any sleep at the prospect of imprisonment.
June 23rd, 2007 at 4:09 pm
I agree that we should listen to alternative views before coming to decisions. The cardinal is entitled to speak his mind and if this is an attempt to silence him, that is not consistent with an open society.
The issue the green party is raising is slightly different than free speech. They triggered an investigation into “whether his warning to Catholic MPs that a vote for the bill would have consequences for their position in church life constituted contempt of Parliament.” Should the cardinal use his religious “leverage” to try to influence policy?
Although I disagree with the cardinal, I think this role is consistent with his actions and he is doing his duty. The Australian MPs have to chose between the moral leadership of the church and using their own judgment on matters. They can’t have their cake and eat it.
AC1
June 23rd, 2007 at 4:24 pm
Precisely, in another article a politician who supports the Cardinal states that there is an issue concerning politicians who publically proclaim their faith and yet consistently vote against it. Asides from hypocrisy, the criticism was, as you said, having ones cake and eating it, that it suited them at election time to declare their faith.