A commentary on today's appeal court decision

The Appeals Court of my home state has rejected an appeal by a well-known neochristian figure against his conviction for child abuse. Child abuse victims - including the one at the centre of this case - and supporters / allies have welcomed this decision, split 2-1 though it was, but there is a possibility of an appeal to Australia's High Court (partly because of the split), so the matter has not been resolved.

The decision has brought a few things to mind for me.

Firstly, irrespective of the outcome of any further appeals, I do not like the person convicted, but that dislike is not based on any potential child abuse, it is based on his homophobia, transphobia, and dedication to and proselytising of an inhumane interpretation of neochristianity. In fact, I have read articles - long before these charges were laid - where others of his faith were critical of him for similar reasons.

He also, in my opinion, developed an utterly inadequate response to child abuse when it started to become public, but that may have been due to much of the rest of his neochristian church as much as him.

NONE of that means he is a child abuser. I'm aware of some people linking having power to child abuse, but I'm also aware of at least some abusers going out of their way to be personable, which doesn't, in my opinion, apply to this person.

Secondly, I am thinking of the victims - which includes me, although my abuse was not at the hands of religious people. Some religious people, including priests, are also thinking of the victims - see, for instance, here.

For those who need them:

• Lifeline on 13 11 14 
• Kids Helpline on 1800 551 800 
• MensLine Australia on 1300 789 978 
• Suicide Call Back Service on 1300 659 467 
• Beyond Blue on 1300 22 46 36 
• Headspace on 1800 650 890 
• ReachOut at au.reachout.com 

I mentioned that I've been abused (and sexually assaulted). I've done my fair share of being counselled, but today is still stirring up a few things, and one of those is some events at school where I realised, after I watched the film "Spotlight", that I was being "groomed" (the abuse that happened was without prior grooming - and was outside the family). I was fortunate that I realised I felt uncomfortable, and had enough strength of character, stubbornness, or whatever to politely decline any further contact of that nature.

As this trial has been proceeding, I've been wondering whether that person I declined contact with actually committed any abuse, or if I was wrong (I was not wrong to back out of further contact), or if I was a one-off for that person - who, you will notice, I am carefully not giving any identifying information about (as I could be wrong about their intent, and I backed out before anything happened). I've done some internet searching for the person concerned, but without any result, and I suspect I will never know.

That was the third point. The fourth is the vehemence of the well-known person's supporters, who are prepared to disbelieve the jury's assessment. Now, noting that there is a difference between freedom of expression or valid criticism and the unreasonable behaviour known as "scandalising  the  court", that disbelief is not limited to the judicial system, it occurs in many other areas of life, including politics, assessing climate change - even on the issue of whether the earth is flat or round (for the record, I say round).

There are circumstances where such scepticism - aka objectivity-  can be useful - for instance, when considering Russia's infamous "show trials", or Chinese propaganda, or when choosing how to react to something on social media.

The current situation, in my opinion, is not one of those situations.

My standard response when asked about controversial court decisions is along the lines of "I wasn't in court, so I didn't get to see all the evidence and hear the testimony, so I don't know". When it comes to child abuse, however, one of the biggest problems is not believing the victims - a point made very eloquently in "Spotlight", and something I have knowledge of from my life as well (although not directly).

My opinion is that this person's supporters need to recognise that there are two matters they are possibly conflating: their feelings about the person, and their feelings about their faith - which is bigger than any one priest. It may help them to acknowledge and meditate on that. If I can separate my dislike for the person concerned from the charges before the courts, they can do the same for their like.

People are complex creatures - after all, even the truly evil John Howard did some good with the national gun laws. I don't consider the person whose appeal was rejected today has done anything to offset anything, but his supporters do. Maybe they should also reflect on the complexity of humans as well.