Thank you Elspeth for your well reasoned, succinct article. When any powerful group presumes to judge those less powerful, a realistic perspective is often the first thing to go. We elect people to govern for all not just those who fit narrow definitions.

Hi Elspeth.

I find it interesting that you didn't comment on the Churches role in the peice you wrote.

Both reports you mention (and you could have done the Child Migrants Report as well) cover the Churches role in setting up the systems you refer too, and actually abusing children as well.

I only raise this as Van Krieken's 'Children of the State' doesn't mention the Churches role in child welfare either, and yet that role is all pervasive, just as it was in enforcing the genocidal regime against the Aborigines, drugging single mothes and stealing their babies under the guise of adoption- and covering up paedophilia.

When you consider that it was the powerful institutions of the Church and the State against at best- marginalised families, at worst- orphans, it gives a whole other slant to ones ideas about 'freedom', 'democracy', and 'christian goodness'.

Or it should!

Best wishes,
John

Goodness me, J Christian Murray has an anti-Christian barrow to push!

The thing is that the church is full of people, and some of them do terrible things. It wasn't "the church" or "the state" that abused children - it was a few people within those institutions. In fact awful things have been done by people of all religions, all types of governments, and all political persuasions. Secular humanist societies have their own particular horrors.

Yes all these terrible things happen. But the church has done so much good in setting up the first hospitals, universities, charitable organisations, and much more. The offenders ought to be held accountable, the institutions examined and the situations prevented. However don't burn the buildings and dismantle the organisations.

You know the old saying, to never judge a religion by its adherents.

The Church is full of people who allow other people to do horrible things!

That is what you are saying isn't it?

And the first hospitals, schools etc, are you saying that is what happened in Australia? (didn’t happen like that at all actually!)

And universities, you mean those places that the church excluded the plebs from for centuries, and women even longer?

And charitable organisations, those very profitable institutions that redistribute the wealth away from the poor? (just how many auditors last year said they couldn’t vouch for what happened to all those billions in Australian charities?)

And those churches that only two decades ago were torturing and drugging single mothers- stealing their babies for the adoption racket-

Or were preaching ad nauseum about sex before marriage, preaching against sex between consenting adults if they dared to enjoy it, or even worse, ORAL SEX!!!!!

all the while going hell for leather with little kiddies (ie priest tearing little 5 year old children’s anuses, forcing their penises down their throats, wipping children etc (note I don't use the Church invented term "child abuse", I call it what it is - RAPE, assault and battery, reckless endangerment etc) and using the institution of the church to protect themselves.

Don't dare preach to me about the good the church does.

It is evil and vile, and brainwashes 'good' people into protecting it.

I know that Jesus said "suffer the children to come under me", but seriously- enough is enough for Christ sake.

Take up weeding the waterways or something- but keep away from the poor, the marginalised, and most importantly- children without families.

Perhaps you might show some christian compassion and work to make your church as good and respectible as it pretends to be, rather thgan treat with disrespect the people who have suffered the churches excesses.

I know exactly who abused me, and continues to abuse children to this day, and narrowminded waffle and bible readings won't change that fundamental truth.

Merry xmas

It is noticed that within this article, Elespeth McInnes repeatedly uses the term “women and children”, but never the term “men and children”. This is also a characteristic in so many other articles she has written.

One can only conclude that she is attempting a form of brainwashing in trying to convince people that children belong to women only, and men do not make real parents.

Her concept of what constitutes a “family” seems to be "a mother and her children", while the father is though of as being unimportant or irrelevant. So much for ethics and morality and concern for other people.