In a similar vein World Vision's CEO Reverend Tim Costello was quoted in The Australian's editorial piece Monday 6 December 2010 regarding the High Court's affirming donations are tax deductible to organisations that lobby politically are 'charitable' under the Act. Costello argues that charities contribute to a civil society by engaging in public policy debates.
This follows David Marr's argument and this is right and true, otherwise you'd have those people in power, pushing everyone around on a whim. Moreover, the recent revelation that the Australian Crime Commission concluded that there were insufficient prospects of securing convictions to justify continuing with its investigation of Paul Hogan raises a host of worrying questions on equality.
The Australian Crime Commission dropped its five-year, $10 million investigation into alleged tax fraud by Hogan and his partner, fellow comedian John Cornell, and their financial adviser Tony Stewart.
He raised an interesting issue which is at the heart of the question of equality; Hogan said that that they demanded he leave a film shoot and talk to them the next day. They were punishing Instinct Films "for hiring me" and what's that saying to them? Don't hire Hoges, he's likely to be pulled off the shoot. That was bullying.
www.news.com.au/money/sorrys-not-good-enough-angry-hoges-tells-ato/story-e6frfmci-1225965730189
This is the hub of the issue for anyone whose name in somehow raised adversely within any Government authority. To defend oneself against such a mammoth attack upon one's integrity and freedom, with the best defence affordable to any citizen, "particularly the ordinary person", it may ultimately mean selling your house.
It would appear to me, that if our freedom is worth anything at all, this is hardly a fair contest. Moreover as the heart of man is desperately wicked, one never knows the motives of those who make such decisions, who may simply 'have it in' for someone and thereby extend the costly process for as long as possible.
If anything, Wikileaks have shown what we've intuitively known for years, that not everyone, even those in the employ of Government, are squeaky clean. When a person with dubious motives with the purse of the Government behind them, then the citizen is up against it from the start. This can hardly be 'conspiracy theory', rather every citizen 'trying to do the right thing' should be alarmed.
Not every system is perfect by any means, but justice is an issue in which Christians place a huge emphasis. So why not an open enquiry when the spokesperson for the Commonwealth of Australia withdraws a case and, certainly if they lose such a case.
Why shouldn't we know where the pressure points were coming from, when a decision was made to proceed against one of it's own citizens. It's certainly in the 'public interest' in line with David Marr and Tim Costello's right and proper philosophy on democracy.
The other balancing question is therefore: Does identifying the Commonwealth of Australia's employed person who pushed a lost cause, confuse matters further?
Yet, it is hardly fair, or right, that a citizen lose their house to fight for their freedom and then, have to find additional resources to gain fair and reasonable compensation for their losses.
If only Solomon was here!