The Anglican Church of Australia Sydney Diocese
Sydney PSU v Drew and Pippa
Whatever happened to the young man that Drew mentored that he unleashed devastation on Drew and Pippa and their children by bringing a groundless complaint against Drew?
Postscript to the series “Is it a case of ‘Find Someone to Blame?’”
By Louise Greentree[1]
I commenced this series with an examination of the conduct of complainant 1 (C1) in bringing a complaint to the Professional Standards Unit of Sydney diocese (PSU)[2] (even, at first suggesting that these constituted child abuse or child sex abuse) with reference to a newspaper article by the social commentator Bernard Salt in The Weekend Australian newspaper July 18-19 2015 titled ‘Find Someone to Blame.’ I recognised some of the elements in human behaviour that Salt writes about in the actions and personalities of the two proponents C1 and Drew. Salt identifies two ‘life forms’ that he says are ‘gaining momentum in Australia’: the Skilled Offence Taker and the Responsibility Assumer. There is a symbiotic relationship between the two, he writes: one cannot survive without the other.
Just a reminder: Salt describes the characteristics of the Skilled Offence Taker, summed up as follows:
- ‘Apart from thinking they are doing the bidding of a higher authority … the main motive of the Skilled Offence Taker … is all about power and control. Feeling a tad marginalised or put upon? Feeling that others don’t appreciate your awesomeness? Then find offence (any offence will do) and watch the accused offender scramble to make amends. That feels good, doesn’t it?’
About the Responsibility Taker Salt says this:
- ‘If there’s any sort of a problem, what does the slow-witted Responsibility Assumer do? Why, they apologise, of course. No need to check the facts; no need for a fairness test; someone’s sad and you’re not sad so it must be all your fault.’
I commented that apart from the description ‘slow-witted’ – a better one would be honest and transparent – who does this sound like but Drew? Does this not resonate when seeking an explanation for Drew stepping up to take responsibility for C1’s ‘uncomfortable-ness’ and ‘hurt’, at first for the accusation of his perceived crossing of boundaries (no accusations of sex abuse or any abuse at this time) and, again, for the accusations of child sex abuse on the very same facts seven years later?
I also commented that, as described and obeyed by Drew, the teaching of the Christian organisation Peacewise calling for people to make unconditional apologies for other people’s ‘hurt’ sounded very like ‘no need to check facts; no need for a fairness test’. I did not make the point then but I do now: the Peacewise program on unconditional apologies is a dangerous piece of nonsensical teaching and should be totally rejected.
Since I wrote the articles in the series I have found another interesting item of news that has application to the total incomprehensibility of C1’s behaviour towards his former mentor:
Janet Albrechtsen ‘Sisterhood makes Women Victims’
The Weekend Australian September 12-13 2015
This article relates the story of how a 27-year-old highly successful English woman barrister, Charlotte Proudman (the irony of her surname ending in ‘man’ will not be lost on you) took to social media to excoriate a man (a 57-year-old partner of a City law firm) for complimenting her in a private email on her photo on Linked-in as he responded to accept her invitation to connect. Albrechsten talks about how modern feminism has corrupted language with the misuse of the word ‘misogyny’[3]. She also reports a statement that Proudman made: accusing him of misogyny and sexual violence, she said ‘I felt as though it was an attack really, that’s what sexism is’. (My emphasis)
Well no, darling, take it from an old feminist, your feeling is NOT what sexism is. It is not a matter of your feeling, it is a matter of objective facts.
So now, if you have been paying attention in the earlier articles, we can see a disturbing trend: the Skilled Offence Taker who gets a kick out of elevating his or her feelings of hurt, uncomfortableness or whatever and, firstly calling it something for which there is no objective evidence and then getting some poor sod to take responsibility for that feeling.
Albrechsten says that this is the present-day manifestation of a movement by the Left which commenced some forty years ago to abandon human rights for a new definition that elevates egalitarian rights. She says:
‘Here was the beginning of a recalibrated human rights movement in favour of victimhood as defined by the paternalistic Left where feelings became the new measurement of human rights. This new victimhood movement has dumped Enlightenment ideas around the notion of what it means to be a human being. People aren’t seen as autonomous and resilient and rational beings anymore. Under this new framework, people … are seen as weak, as vulnerable, as a quivering mass of nerves in need of protection. ’
Now, you may well ask: how does this relate to allegations of child abuse? Of course a child, the younger the more vulnerable, needs protection from inappropriate sexual contact[4] and physical and emotional abuse and neglect. And the State criminal law system is best placed to deal with these allegations from investigation through to trial and punishment upon conviction. Not the church. And the church should not try to impose its’ own system on any part of the Police process – before or after or instead of the proper authorities.[5]
But when you are talking about this man, complainant 1 –
- complaining some 7 years after he turned 18
- about activities that he undertook with his mentor in youth ministry, Drew,
- which were lawful actions, not immoral, not against biblical teachings nor against church law then nor even at the time a charge under church law was cobbled together;
- these actions which he was free to refuse to undertake and therefore, at the ages of between about 16 and 18, he consented to,
- and as none of the actions involved any sexual taint or intent or outcome, his consent and lack of complaint at the time to his mentor nor to anyone else is a very strong factor against the viability of his later complaint[6];
- because, and only because of his feeling uncomfortable or hurt (goodness me, when did it happen that a sane, sensible and rational human being was ‘hurt’ by being given a present of a pair of swimming trunks?);
you have a prime example of this new definition of victimhood developed by the Left that Albrechsten writes about. Don’t you?
This totally unacceptable redefinition of human rights in terms of ‘feelings’ is also behind the thinking of the rev. Peter Barnett, with disastrous consequences[7].
Summing up
In this series I have looked at various aspects of the behaviour of complainant 1 (C1) and postulated various reasons that he might bring a complaint to the PSU of Sydney diocese of the Anglican church believing that he had a cause to complain when none of the actions complained about had any sexual intent or outcome (and this is acknowledged by him), and none of them are unlawful, immoral, against Biblical teaching nor against church law. And the actual charges brought to the disciplinary tribunal also acknowledge this: none of them allege any sexual abuse or grooming for sexual purposes. The terms of the charges are that these actions are ‘disgraceful if performed by a youth minister and that caused or if known would have caused a scandal’.
None of the actions could possibly be said to be ‘disgraceful’ when you take, firstly an ordinary dictionary meaning: ‘disgraceful’ means ‘outrageous, shocking, shameful, scandalous, dishonourable, discreditable, reprehensible, appalling, and dreadful’. Do any of the actions complained of really attract such extreme a description? I think not. The reasonable and rational person would not think so. It is like saying that a molehill is a mountain, or that a storm in a teacup is a real storm. It overstates, exaggerates and hypes up the unremarkable. This is what C1 has done, and C2 has simply made things up to try to support him. Then, secondly, if you add the extensive statutory declaration evidence supporting Drew, praising his actions, including ones complained of by C1, as helpful and accepted with gratitude by many other members of the youth groups under Drew’s care.
You have to ask: what on earth was C1 really on about?
Endnotes
[1] Louise Greentree BA LLB LLM(Hons) ProfCertArb Admitted to the Supreme Court of NSW and to the High Court as a solicitor(now retired). Former partner of Sydney city firm of solicitors. Lately law academic with special interest in Legal Professional Conduct, Alternative Dispute Resolution and restorative processes. Professional training includes Real Justice Restorative Conferencing and Collaborative Law.
[2] A complaint about actions that were lawful, not immoral, not in breach of the Bible and not in breach of church law (Ordinances) and when he had suffered no harm.
[3] ‘Misogyny’ actually means ‘hating women’. Here, she says, is a real example of misogyny: ‘a few weeks ago an all-male council in an Indian village ordered that two sisters be stripped naked, paraded in public and gang-raped as punishment for crimes committed by their brother. Their brother had eloped with a married woman of higher caste.’
[4] I take it that children and teenagers of roughly the same age can engage in sexual contact with each other without risking a gaol term.
[5] The provision for such church-mandated interference in the State and national criminal law system has led to the absurdity of the disciplinary tribunal (explored in the articles in the series ‘Drew’s Adventures in Wonderland’ and ‘It’s a Funny Thing About the Disciplinary Tribunal’ on this website) as well as totally incompetent investigations such as the one carried out in the Figtree Anglican Church case (which is the subject of an article to be published shortly), not to mention the poor judgment and ‘legal’ incompetence of the deliberations of the Professional Standards Committee (another article in the ‘It’s a Funny Thing About …’ series to be published shortly).
[6] While a child under the age of 18 is not held to have consented to sexual activity with these classes of adults in a special relationship of trust and authority despite the ‘age of consent ‘to sexual activity being 16 at law, where non-sexual activity is involved, especially totally lawful activity, Faithfulness in Service specifically allows for a child’s consent to physical touch, for example, to be considered, and the older the child the more his or her consent is relevant in deciding whether the recommendations of the Code of Conduct have been breached,
[7] See Drew’s article ‘The Professional Advice of a Non-Professional. About the rev. Peter Barnett’ on this website.