Shadow Minister, posting on Sunday, 19 February 2012 at 4:00:21 AM, says:

"MTR is perfectly aware that as a committed Catholic,
her attempts to fight the right to choice is immediately
perceived as a religious crusade against a fundamental
human right. By trying to avoid discussing her deep belief,
she is trying to portray her crusade as based on "rationality"."

Could Shadow Minister quote any reference that backs up the claim that MTR is a 'committed Catholic', or state upon what basis that assertion has been made?

In asking this question, I am not attempting to suggest that SM is incorrect in that assertion. MTR's 12 years as a presumably acceptable bio-ethics advisor to Harradine alone makes that assertion very believable. The point is that if SM's assertion is based upon certain knowledge, or upon believable publicly accessible record, it is absolutely central to this whole issue of MTR having taken first resort to defamation law in an attempt to shut down Jennifer Wilson's blog 'No Place for Sheep'.

It should not be forgotten that one of the lawyers' first demands was that ALL REFERENCE to MTR be removed from Wilson's blog. Another demand was that the fact of this demand, and other demands of their letter, should not be published. MTR demanding the right to censor Wilson, but at the same time wishing not to be known to be doing so. That all smacks of something Wilson having said, or being anticipated as being likely to say, something MTR identifies as extremely inconvenient in relation to the public image she would like to maintain.

MTR's attempt at demanding OLO should cease publishing Wilson, a demand made prior to the publication of Hills' article and Wilson's 10 January blog post, would seem to support the view that MTR sees Wilson as some form of threat to MTR's public persona.

Devine's apologia as to MTR having been "brought up Christian, attending Uniting Church services as a child in Mildura", is most interesting for its recent recounting.

Love a reference, SM.

I think it's probably another great example of SM shooting first and asking questions later, Forrest Gumpp. Frankly, I place more faith in Devine's article than I do in somebody who regularly resorts to namecalling when peddling political diatribe. And, if Devine's article has any semblance of truth, MTR is not 'committed' to any religious denomination (as she doesn't attend any church), and was certainly never committed to Catholicism, having attended a UNITING Church as a kid.

And here we have an example of what I said earlier: the uninformed making ridiculous assertions based on somebody's perceived religious stance. This is why she should have either kept her mouth shut or been prepared to open up wide.

And McReal, you certainly have a valid point about context. My Abbott example wasn't the best - those who dismiss him on religious grounds generally have no political sway anyway (except when it comes to an election).

There is no requirement to disclose a religious beliefs or any other belief. A conflict of interest issue is different matter when attempting to influence, if there is an affiliation, say with a business you are involved, where there might be undue advantage. This is not the same IMO.

Most POVs are debatable on merit. Protagonists may choose to include religious affiliations or beliefs as part of an argument, but to force declarations implies Christians are a homogenous group.

Afterall what does it mean to be a feminist. To listen to some views feminists are out to subjugate men and take over the world. If you have to declare as a feminist on every issue what is the point if the perceptions are so skewed, as to make any difference.

There are many Catholics who take birth control, have abortions and non-religious people who might be pro-life or debates about where life begins?

MTR has been public about her religious affiliations-does she have to declare it every time. Do I have to declare as an atheist if I am putting forward a view that could be soundly argued by reason and facts? Does that label have to identify me on every issue?

Teaching religion in schools, for example, can be argued in terms of government interference in private lives and in forcing of doctrines, which might be an argument attractive to both Christians or Atheists purely on an ethical basis.

This whole affair would have been a storm in a teacup but for MTR seeking to suppress free speech. Whether one agrees with the claim that a religious belief should be declared, it is not defamatory to assert someone is religious or to request they declare themselves, particularly in this case as it is not a secret and is widely known (or easily found via research). Reist equally has the right to deny to debate the issue or to dismiss it as irrelevant.

The whole media frenzy over this is really about the free speech aspect and the risk of litigious threats in stifling debate.

Forest posted some links on the "Why the need for consensus" thread to twitter comments related to this issue. A comment made on that listing prompted some thoughts on the issue. They seem more relevant here than on the consensus thread.

It was comment by Leslie Cannold "Demanding disclosure is about ensuring YOU have the power to decide who's a feminist" http://twitter.com/#!/search?q=%23MTRsues from the 15th Feb that set off some additional thinking on the topic.

It's been argued that argument made should be important rather than the affiliations of that person or how they are identified (my take on it anyway). I point I largely agree with but in relation to the side topic, if it's not important to know that someone is a christian (or part of some other grouping with strong bias's on a topic) then why should it matter that someone can be identified as a feminist.

I suspect that when discussing porn or reproductive rights identifying as a feminist is seen as adding credibility for enough of the not already converted that it's worth announcing, being seen as a christian won't help much with those who don't already agree.

So while it's true that affiliations should not matter I suspect that they are being used based on perceived advantage and disadvantage. Just as it should not impact the debate that someone is christain it should also not impact the debate that they are feminist but I don't think that's the reality.

R0bert

Apologies,

MTR is a committed Christian, I assumed that with her affiliation with Catholic causes and associations that she was Catholic. She attends a Baptist church which as far as evangelical Puritanism differs little from the Catholics.

http://blog.cannold.com/2011/09/melinda-tankard-reist-biography.html

The denomination is not the issue, even if you wish to nit pick, the issue is that her religious faith is what motivates her position on women's rights not feminism.

But SM,

Apparently her particular "brand" of Christianity IS the issue as far as the threat of defamation is concerned. Jennifer Wilson called her a Baptist after taking it for "gospel" that, amongst other sources, information on MTR's wiki page was accurate.

However, MTR has denied that she is a Baptist. She has instead stated that she is a Christian. In fact, in the letters regarding this subject, the issue of being labelled (erroneously) as a Baptist was central to MTR's threat of proceedings toward Jennifer - along with Jennifer referring to MTR as "deceptive and duplicitous".

http://noplaceforsheep.com/2012/01/17/some-thoughts-on-being-threatened-with-defamation-by-melinda-tankard-reist/