Red Rag

During the week I relayed the sad news that the Catholic Church had decided that it would no longer offer the Eucharist to people with coeliac disease. I’m glad that I can now report that at least one priest is standing up for his parishioners:

A Sydney priest has taken a stand against his boss, the Archbishop, George Pell, and published an uncompromising critique of his leadership.

Father John Crothers, a priest for 19 years in the Sydney Archdiocese, has condemned Cardinal Pell’s conservative leadership style as “exclusive and inflexible”, expressing itself in an “us and them” mentality that has led to low morale among his fellow priests and alienation by many parishioners.

The criticism has triggered a strong response, and the National Council of Priests has indicated that it would support Father Crothers if he faced disciplinary action.

[...]

The editor of Online Catholics, Kate Mannix, said Father Crothers’s article had touched a raw nerve among Catholics across the country.

“We have received more letters than we can possibly publish, and all have come out in support of John’s incredibly courageous stand.["]

The final straw compelling Father Crothers to go public came last week, after he had to inform a devastated parishioner suffering from chronic coeliac disease that she would no longer be able to receive Holy Communion. The Vatican has ordered all manufacturers and suppliers of gluten-free hosts to cease production and distribution of them.

Father Crothers said he knew he had to take a stand. Something had gone “seriously wrong” in a church where conservative leadership was promoting religion as an end in itself, at the expense of the rights and needs of faithful Catholics.

Good on ya, Father Crothers.

I was going to put up a long post about Ben Weerheym, but will have to hold off for a while, thanks to this excellent news in today’s Australian:

West Australian police have charged a white supremacist who avoided jail after concealing his alleged involvement with a racist terror group.

Police yesterday charged Ben Weerheym, 27, with seven counts of criminal damage and one count of stealing over a spate of racist graffiti attacks that began in August last year.

Earlier this month, Mr Weerheym successfully defended his role in racist graffiti attacks in July by claiming he was only the driver.

If Weerheym is convicted, he will go to jail because he is already on a suspended sentence.

The Sydney Morning Herald has started a new blog by Antony Loewenstein, Counterspin. (Not a “web diary”, but a proper blog — although permalinks wouldn’t go astray.)

It makes interesting reading, especially as Loewenstein isn’t shy about criticising his employer.

On Scrafton’s letter to The Australian:

The Sydney Morning Herald clearly got wind of the yarn because a story appeared on page one of the paper, essentially reporting the contents of the letter, but little else.

Later:

The Sydney Morning Herald’s coverage was less comprehensive, though reporter Tom Allard’s page one lead is strong[.]

[...]

The paper’s editorial demands answers from Howard but appears determined to walk a fine line between supporting and questioning him[.]

On Wednesday:

The Sydney Morning Herald’s coverage is strangely muted. Page one is filled with a number of stories, but nothing on the Scrafton affair. Page 8 is the first opportunity to read about the latest events – and they’re buried at the bottom of the page.

Today:

The SMH’s opinion page, once again, featured nothing on the story.

Loewenstein links to (and applauds) his competitors, and complains about aspects of his own paper’s coverage. That’s the type of editorial freedom that a successful “official” blog requires if it is going to be credible.

Now, if only SMH would ditch Margo and link Loewenstein prominently — or indeed anywhere! — on the front page.

My cousin, Katherine, suffers from coeliac disease. It’s a medical condition that requires strict avoidance of gluten in her diet. Gluten is found in most grains: wheat, barley, rye, etc.

This causes some difficulty, because there a whole range of products that unexpectedly include grains in their ingredients. However, the Coeliac Society provides excellent information to help her parents avoid gluten in her food.

This year, Katherine makes her First Holy Communion. Gluten-free wafers were developed to allow people suffering from coeliac disease to meet their sacramental obligations.

Not any more.

Thanks to an edict from the Vatican, Katherine will have to forego the eucharist or suffer diarrhoea every Sunday.

The Church’s response to the Coeliac Society’s complaints has been to tell “very sensitive sufferers” to take wine but not the wafer. If my distant memories of church are anything to go by, that’s not always possible — most masses I went to didn’t offer the wine to the congregation.

Jesus went out of his way to bend dogmatic rules in order to assist the sick. Is it any wonder that the Church is increasingly seen as an uncaring, irrelevant institution?

With all this talk of hooking pollies up to lie detectors, I was reminded of an excellent article in The Wave, in which San Franciscan mayoral candidates are subjected to a Voight-Kampff test:

If you vote for Susan, you will be electing a replicant, but one of the most highly advanced models available.

Mathieu O’Neil is a Visiting Fellow at ANU, and a blogger of blogging. He wants to study the psychology of bloggers. If you want to help him, complete his survey.

Long ago in a far-off land, John Howard murdered someone.

When questioned by police, he protested his innocence.

The police could take no action, because they didn’t have enough evidence — Howard had ensured that key witnesses wouldn’t co-operate with the police.

One of those key witnesses, Mike Scrafton, eventually broke his silence. The police re-opened the investigation, but Howard continued to deny he had committed the crime.

The matter went to court, and Howard was found guilty based partly on Scrafton’s evidence but also because other witnesses now had the confidence to come forward.

Howard still said he didn’t do it.

When it came time for sentencing, Justice Brandis decided to let him go free.

“No, I don’t think that follows at all (that Howard should be punished if found guilty),” Justice Brandis told the court. “Mr Howard’s version of these events has been consistent from the start.”

I told some people that Jack van Tongeren had shaved off his moustache and then put on an identical fake moustache. Since it sounds hard to believe, and therefore those people were reluctant to believe me, I’m posting the source of the story.

It was in Nick Ley’s Strewth column in The Australian on 16 August 2004. Here’s the segment, with my emphasis:

They are very sneaky people, those Australian Nationalist Movement types. Take Jack van Tongeren, leader of the far-right group and someone readily recognised by the people of Perth due to his thick moustache, “giggle” style army hat and penchant for committing acts of thuggery against Asian shop-keepers. Appearing in court last week, van Tongeren was not only hatless but also sans the well known mo’, except for a few grey strands. But when he was spotted in St George’s Terrace the week before and promptly pounced on before he could hand himself in, his soup strainer was firmly in place. Did he shave it off while on remand, or did the fuzz remove it during his interrogation, as suggested by one former member of van Tongeren’s group? It seems neither is true — van Tongeren shaved before his arrest and donned a false mo’ as a disguise that looked remarkably like, well, himself. Friend Judith Lyons was equally mystified: “I don’t know why — why would you disguise yourself as yourself?” A good question.

It is a good question, but I think I have a plausible explanation.

When JVT went into hiding, he shaved his mo’ to disguise himself. Then, when he decided to hand himself in — and knowing the TV news would be watching — he wanted to look like himself so stuck on the fake bristles.

Plausible, but still weird.

Ken Parish and that goose Fred are arguing the toss about an alleged prior inconsistent statement by Mike Scrafton, and Al Bundy has pitched in to push John Howard’s line.

Let’s go straight to the horse’s mouth:

It is a matter of public record that I did speak to Mr Mike Scrafton on the night of Wednesday 7 November 2001. I told the House of Representatives of this in answer to a question on 19 February 2002, some 2½ years ago. I said in that answer that I had spoken to Mr Scrafton entirely about the video. This was reported in the media the following day.

My sole purpose in ringing him on 7 November 2001 was to obtain his assessment of the video which he had just viewed.

Liar.

In a Four Corners interview in early 2002, Howard admitted that he had discussed the photos. You might remember the interview, because Howard tied himself in all kinds of knots after he realised he wasn’t supposed to admit to having discussed the photos:

JOHN HOWARD: I had some discussion ah with a member of [Peter Reith's] staff who had viewed the video. There was in the terms that I’ve already explained ah a reference to the debate about the photographs and ah…

LIZ JACKSON: Now that’s exactly what I want to ask you about though I don’t want to ask you about the video, I’m just asking you whether or not you were given any indication that there were doubts about the photos, that’s all I’m asking you.

JH: Mm eh eh I have already indicated…

LJ: And you said yes…

JH: No I’ve already indicated that there was a reference to it, I…

LJ: A reference to it?

JH: …would have, I would fry quite frankly ah to know the exact words that I’ve used in the past ah…

LJ: You’ve indicated doubts in the past…

JH: I’ve eh no no I’m sorry, um would you let me answer, I mean this is, you know you you should allow me to answer the question. I was asked about this in a news conference and I gave an answer which referred to the fact that we had, we had discussed the issue…

LJ: Discussed?

JH: I don’t remember the exact words I’ve used I’m not going to testify to the exact words I’ve used without checking them because otherwise that will be thrown back by your or somebody else at me so I’m I’m, you can question me all night Liz about…

LJ: The photo…

JH: …that ah I you, I would simply say I made a reference to that and that reference was correct I don’t have anything to add to that.

LJ: All right well the following day you were asked very directly and very specifically about the photographs. I mean Fran Kelly put it to you that Defence Forces were saying they were the wrong photographs. Why didn’t you indicate at that stage that you’d discussed the photographs the night before and the issue had in your words been raised with you?

JH: Well the reason, the reason why I’d moved on from the photographs…

LJ: And but she was asking you about the photographs.

JH: No, no I’m sorry, I’m sorry, well I…

LJ: I mean you you might want to move on but the whole of the Australian…

JH: No I, no, no no, no I’m sorry I’m sorry, no what I’d like, what I would like to do is to be allowed to answer your question and not constantly interrupted. The reason why I gave the answer that I did to Fran Kelly was that in my mind the important thing was the release of the video and I don’t have anything to regret or retract about the answer that I gave to Fran Kelly at all times ah the explanation that I have given is consistent with my clear recollection of the circumstances. Ah I repeat, I was never told by my Department I was never told by Mr Reith that the original advice ah had been contradicted and and that remains the position and nothing has emerged, nothing has emerged ah to alter that fact.

LJ: When were you going to tell the Australian public that you had a little bit of doubt about the photos?

JH: That implies that I was covering something up and I reject that completely.

Let me repeat the key sentence:

There was in the terms that I’ve already explained ah a reference to the debate about the photographs and ah…

What was that about prior inconsistent statements?

(More discussion at Back Pages, John Quiggin, Barista and MUSU hack Alex White’s Psephological Catechism.)

Went along to Mark’s EP launch. Had a good time. Full report later, but for now I just have to post this:

Yes, it’s Anthony of Spiceblog fame, passed out in the corner at Mojos. He is indeed a curiosity of beer…

Update: Okay, so here’s the details.

I arrived at Mojos as Burgers of Beef were setting up. There was a fire-twirler outside, which was impressive. I stuffed my CD into my pocket, said g’day to Mark and ordered a Toohey’s Old.

Burgers of Beef are good. They’re better when the fellow who plays keyboard picks up his trombone instead. I especially liked the song about penguins.

I was very keen to see what Descend Here were like. I’d listened to the MP3 Mark put on his blog, which was pretty good.

Then I noticed a fellow selling raffle tickets for a quilt. I’d seen him around uni before. He is a very weird guy (in a zany, performing arts student way). When he got on stage with Mark I knew that we would get the weirdness we were promised.

My verdict? Tomás has a good voice, and Mark plays a mean guitar. They just didn’t seem to fit together — except during their excellent kazoo cover of Radiohead’s No Surprises. That was cool, probably because it had far less electro-weirdness going on.

Still, I’d see them again. And maybe next time Anthony will be in a fit state for a conversation…

Further update: Just remembered something weird that happened last night.

I was standing at one of those bar-height tables that they have in pubs, nursing my beer and waiting for Descend Here to get their shit together, when a delectable lass (a friend of Mark’s, I’m sure) wandered over and accused me of being Xander.

I denied the charge, and she told me that I was “officially the spitting image of someone else”. I should have asked for some kind of certificate, so that if people suggest I don’t look like Xander I could pull it out and say, “Look, it’s official.”

Xander, if you’re out there reading this: you must be a handsome devil.

The Prime Minister, John Howard, yesterday rejected Labor’s call for a 12-month ban on former ministers taking jobs relating to their past portfolios, declaring “You cannot legislate morality if there is no instinct for it.”

[...]

Mr Alston joins a long list of former Howard Government ministers who have found work in their portfolio area after leaving Parliament.

How have so many immoral people found their way onto Howard’s front bench?

You might recall that Nicola Roxon stooped pretty darn low in her speech to the homophobic bigots that turned up at Parliament last week. Thankfully, she’s been called on it by caucus:

She told the forum that Labor had “no intention now, after the inquiry finishes or after the election, of advocating for gay marriage”. Left-wing MPs believe that Ms Roxon made a unilateral decision to overrule that promise to “suck up” to the Christians.

The speech outraged the Left, which confronted Ms Roxon last week and told her she had misrepresented Labor policy and “betrayed” the gay and lesbian community. Labor had promised that it would not vote for the ban until a Senate report into the issue had been handed down.

Mr Albanese and other frontbenchers [including Lindsay Tanner, Alan Griffin and Kate Lundy] argued Ms Roxon had gone too far in an attempt to impress a group of Christians, who were unlikely to vote Labor, at the expense of the gay and lesbian community, which had shown the party support.

[...]

Left-wing frontbenchers had warned the meeting that the strong comments by Ms Roxon had been interpreted as “anti-gay” and were having negative electoral ramifications. They said the party had to spend more time selling its progressive gay policies, including its commitment to end discrimination in legislation, in order to keep seats such as Melbourne Ports and Sydney.

Meanwhile, The Age has a sensible editorial on the issue.

On Wednesday, police said they were in no hurry to speak to Jack van Tongeren. Yesterday, he was arrested, and this morning he faced court for four counts of conspiracy to commit arson and nineteen counts of criminal damage.

He’s a strange (and dangerous) character. Apparently, “Mr Van Tongeren, a Vietnam veteran, saluted the court as he was led away.” His experiences in Vietnam had a profound impact on him:

The notorious Asian-hater is the son of a Javanese father. In 1989 Rudi van Tongeren confirmed that his son had disowned him. Rudi van Tongeren said his son had served in Vietnam and came back “abnormal”.

I hope he’s locked up for a long time.

I hope my friend Ben Weerheym is locked up, too. It’s hard to believe that Weerheym’s internet activities weren’t raised at the trial, but now that The Australian has run a substantial article about them, he might be in more trouble:

Before he was sentenced to a six-month suspended sentence this week, Weerheym’s lawyer, Michael Tudori, told the Perth Magistrates Court Weerheym was not interested in the ANM and had not wanted to take part in the graffiti.

However The Weekend Australian has learned that for almost two years Weerheym has been promoting the ANM and urging violent attacks against ethnic groups on a white supremacist website called Stormfront.org.

Under the pseudonym Thor Hammered, Weerheym has posted more than 800 messages, ranting against Asians, Jews and Muslims. He has urged others to blow up a Perth nightclub owned by Asians.

“The more the white youth of Australia stand up and show them their true feelings towards the invaders THE BETTER!!” he wrote in March last year.

Weerheym also wrote: “After a recent trip east by the key members of the ANM/ANWU, it has become apparent we are the most effective, organised, active and above all premier nationalist/pro-white organisation in Australia.”

When Weerheym was confronted about his pseudonym — which was tracked to his email address and his telephone number — he refused to answer any questions about it or his involvement with the ANM.

[...]

DPP Robert Cock said Weerheym may have misled the court.

“If we establish that he had misled the court in his submission we would be very enthusiastic to get the matter back before the court to be corrected,” he said.

Ben was outed on Active Perth (the precursor to Indymedia) some time ago, when he posted under “Aussie Nationalist” rather than “Thor Hammered”. Steve Edwards, Giovanni Torre and I used to have some entertaining discussions with him.

Maybe we can have more discussions with him in future — they have internet access in jail, right?

Update: More information from today’s Sunday Times:

Director of Public Prosecutions Robert Cock said it could be difficult to get the sentence overturned.

“We could ask the Supreme Court to reconsider the sentence in the light of new evidence that was not available previously, but the threshold is very high and I wouldn’t be prepared to do that unless it (the evidence) was very strong and very relevant,” Mr Cock said. Mr Cock said he would assess any new evidence from police in conjunction with the transcript of Mr Weerheym’s court appearance.

It is very clear that Weerheym has had a long commitment to racist ideology, and has been involved with ANM for some time. This directly contradicts his lawyer’s submission to the court. I hope that it’s enough for the DPP to proceed.

The Sunday Times also published this picture:

This might be the last time he’s photographed in his natural habitat.

Sean Carney’s column offers an accurate account of what happened in the Labor caucus last week:

On Thursday of last week, after canvassing widely across the party and the broader Labor movement, [Mark Latham's] inclination was to go with his initial assessment of the FTA, which was that it was not a good enough deal for Australia and should be opposed by Labor.

But the following day, senior colleagues from the pro-American segment of his front bench [that is, Kim Beazley and Stephen Conroy] told him they could not — and perhaps would not — follow him if he went down that road.

Meanwhile, some parts of what might be called the non-Coalition constituency across the national electorate got ready to do what they have done reliably for the past eight years: express outrage that Labor is not anti-Howard enough and bemoan the ALP as an unsupportable pale imitation of the Liberal Party. This was evident in the avalanche of phone calls and emails to the offices of Labor MPs late last week, many of which were threats to withdraw support if Latham came down in favour of the FTA.

[...]

The Labor leader is one unpredictable political creature. At the shadow cabinet meeting on Tuesday morning where Labor’s position was finalised, Latham let rip. In language he has ruled out using in public, he told his frontbenchers that in public life you had to be able to live with yourself, that your view of what was right and what was wrong had to guide your decisions.

This week, he bounced back into contention. In taking a course of action that could lead to the FTA not going through before the election, Latham – who has never really liked the agreement – seems to have at least half-listened to himself.

I’ve been following Perth’s Nazi problem for some time now, but haven’t covered the latest developments.

In a nutshell, a bunch of members of Jack van Tongeren’s Australian Nationalist Movement covered houses and synagogues with racist stickers and graffiti. Police caught the bastards, and uncovered plots to kill various people — Jim McGinty, the head of the ethnic communities’ council. A property was raided, but van Tongeren has gone into hiding, claiming that ASIO is trying to assassinate him.

Now police are concerned for the safety of two more people: a former ANM member who testified against them, and “a man identified as the leader of the ANM’s so-called paramilitary arm who is believed to have been a key player in the recent racist graffiti attacks.”

A couple of those involved in the recent graffiti attacks are going to jail, which is excellent news.

Earlier this year I received threats of violence from one nutter, and hate mail from others. Unfortunately, the dickhead who made the threats was given a suspended sentence because he was driving the getaway car. Fortunately, he seems to be in the shit with his Stormfront mates for denouncing his beliefs in court.