Hear, hear, Tony! Well said.

Tony Lewis,
But she may be a threat to other feminists, because she could be building up a gathering.

She could take attention away from the other feminists.

SM, posting on Sunday, 19 February 2012 at 2:22:38 PM, says:

"Apologies, MTR is a committed Christian,
I assumed that with her affiliation with
Catholic causes and associations that she
was Catholic. ..."

I'm taking that to be a response in the negative as to knowledge of the existence of any reference to SM's earlier assertion that MTR was Catholic. I wasn't trying to nitpick, SM, as such an assertion that MTR is Catholic, if able to be sustained in the face of other express or implied claims as to denominational affiliation, would have gone far in establishing a prima facie defence as to truthfulness in relation to JW's use of the term "deceptive and duplicitous" in the blog piece over which JW has been threatened with lawsuit.

What equally concerns me is Otokonoko's apparent acceptance of Miranda Devine's account in this respect at face value. Otokonoko said, speaking with respect to SM's earlier assertion as to MTR's being Catholic, in her post of Sunday, 19 February 2012 at 11:11:09 AM:

"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."

The problem, Otokonoko, is that Devine's article ( http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/opinion/why-being-christian-gets-you-crucified/story-e6frezz0-1226250226632 ), to use JW's words, was "a shocker". That article seemingly sought to establish a chronology of cause and effect that put MTR centre stage and cast in the light of 'victim' in what, by the time it was published on 22 January, had become in reality a PR disaster of MTR's own making. I pointed out its chronological errors here: http://noplaceforsheep.com/2012/01/21/entitlement-bullying-and-private-faith/#comment-11175

Important stuff is going on here, Otokonoko, and some interests, I suspect, have a lot invested in obscuring just what that may really be.

TBC

Continued

So, in the absence of any reference corroborating any claim as to MTR being Catholic, it seems that MTR's claim, as reported in Devine's article, as to "[having] no denominational affiliation" and "along with two thirds of Australians, [having been] brought up Christian, attending Uniting Church services as a child in Mildura", may have to be accepted at face value.

Given that Hills' Sunday Life article of 8 January could be taken as the launch of a political/media campaign to elevate the public profile of MTR, too close or identifiable an association with the implementation of Vatican policy of MTR (such as the 12 years as Harradine's bio-ethics advisor) could be seen by those backing such a campaign as a negative. How much more assistive of Vatican aims would it be if a bellwether with no provable Catholic identity, but a track record of effective assistance in quietly implementing Vatican policy, could be emplaced to establish Vatican hegemony over not only the entire nominally Christian Australian population, but also a large segment of the not-necessarily-Christian 'feminist' population, such that the Vatican could represent itself as having a right to procure legislation of its own choice in the name of that entire population?

Examples as to where such presumptive Vatican 'rights' to procure self-serving legislation might lead are to be found in the soon-to-be-enacted prescriptive medical procedure of vaginal ultrasound scans for all women seeking terminations in the State of Virginia, USA, and the Brazilian midnight Presidential decree of 26 December 2011 requiring the registration of all pregnancies in that country.

Could it be that Wilson's blog post, or the public discussion it may have been seen as likely engendering, was perceived by MTR and/or her backers, in what seems may have been an already well planned campaign to emplace MTR in some more powerful position of political influence, as a direct threat to such a large and long-term investment in political positioning?

Such could make Wilson's cause one of freedom of speech against tyranny.

Mitt Romney seems to have a similar problem in America. I think that since she has stated her religious belief and it is known where she attends, the discussion as to what she believes should be taken there. If she talked to the media about what her beliefs were, then there would be a public discussion about her belief but everyone would say what they believes but not search for truth. I think its enough to say "I am a baptist Christian then we as the public should search out what it is that Baptists believe, from their mouth and their church. If people had a searching attitude to prove those things that she believes on that are true, and dismiss that which is not, irrespective of our previous belief, then and only then could we have an effective religious public discussion. The problem is not the belief, the problem is that the audience won't listen properly.

'she attends a Baptist church...'

Are you mad SM! Shhhhh!

'So while it's true that affiliations should not matter I suspect that they are being used based on perceived advantage and disadvantage. '

Spot on R0bert. Again.

See, it's all about branding and controlling your brand.

If I was a company called Motor Transport Rastafarians, I'd be shaking in my boots.

All those rastas threatening the MTR brand.

Imagine if MTR owned Apple.