About
Content
Store
Forum

Rebirth of Reason
War
People
Archives
Objectivism

Post to this threadMark all messages in this thread as readMark all messages in this thread as unreadBack one pagePage 0Page 1Page 2Page 3Page 4Page 5Page 6Page 7Page 8Forward one pageLast Page


Post 20

Wednesday, July 13, 2005 - 12:46amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Julian Pistorius writes of "Jeff Riggenbach's not-so-subtle accusation against Linz. He alleges that Linz went to the government with evidence against Peron."

I do not so allege.  I have not so alleged.  I have heard the accusation from people I regard as reputable and generally reliable.  I wondered if there was any truth to it.  I find Linz's response entirely satisfactory, with respect to the issue of whether he precipitated or assisted the government action against Jim Peron.

On the other hand, I agree entirely with Adam Reed that Jim's rights have been violated.  I too have seen no evidence thus far for the claim that Jim is guilty of actually abusing any child.  So far as I can see, he is guilty at most of expressing unpopular opinions.  I suspect Ayn Rand would be aghast, were she alive today, to witness how many contemporary Objectivists are loath to defend the least attractive practitioners of the right to free expression.

JR 



Post 21

Wednesday, July 13, 2005 - 12:51amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Madeleine Flannagan seeks an "on the ground person in San Francisco."  I'm not sure exactly what she wants, so I'm not necessarily volunteering (even if she'd have me).  But I live in San Francisco.  I was here when Eric Garris owned the bookstore in question, and I was here when Jim Peron took it over.  I know Ron Dorsey, and I know that there's more to be said about his role in the whole story than is evident from Eric Garris's extremely terse e-mail.

JR


Sanction: 2, No Sanction: 0
Post 22

Wednesday, July 13, 2005 - 5:28amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
"I too have seen no evidence thus far for the claim that Jim is guilty of actually abusing any child."

That would be because no one has claimed that. Do keep up.
(Edited by Peter Cresswell
on 7/13, 6:01am)


Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Post 23

Wednesday, July 13, 2005 - 7:17amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
"So far as I can see, he is guilty at most of expressing unpopular opinions..."

You make it sound like Peron was favourably comparing Eminem to Beethoven. Waxing lyrical about man-boy or man-little-girl love isn't an "unpopular opinion." It is advocating rape, it equals advocating the initiation of force against another.
Do not try and diminish the significance of Peron's disgusting beliefs.


Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Post 24

Wednesday, July 13, 2005 - 7:48amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
For the same reason Robert Winefield gives, I need to "weigh in" also, just for the sake of having a clear conscience.

Over-specialisation is a form of enslavement and orchestrated disability. More commonly we associate deformity with people in wheelchairs, crippled limbs,  prosthetic body parts, blind eyes, deaf ears. People with speech impediments, people who are diabetics or epileptics or whatever- these are easily thought of as the disabled and unhealthy among us. But this is nothing! There is a far worse deformity and it is one of which Jim Peron partakes and for which he is being punished.

The worst condition anybody can be in is not having a diseased and under-developed part of themselves but rather a grotesquely over-developed one at the expense of all others. If you want to pity a man, better not to pity one who has lost their hand, better to pity a man who has lost themselves in the pursuit of perfecting that hand, or that voice or that throwing arm or writing-style. You should pity modern Olympic athletes who have subordinated their social, economic, educational, family and spiritual values to their grueling and consuming training in the ability to throw a ball farther or to run their legs faster. This is the worst crime, turning away from exploring all the rich potentialities of life to pursue just one specialisation. The good life is a well-rounded life, not a quest to be the best scientist or cricketer or capitalism advocate. To the extent that Jim Peron has disabled himself this way he is a monument to American stupidity.

I know Jim, and consider myself qualified to say this about him. Jim has made it his specialty to learn about freedom and spread it into the world- it is his goal in life, his educational background, his workplace, his source of income, his ego, his conscience...it's just everything. This may not be fair, and he may not agree with me. However, when I asked him about the homosexual library in his Aristotle's bookshop or even about the cat he rescued ("Tequila") he related it back to his "classical liberalism". Knowing this much, there isn't a great deal more to tell about the fellow except that he takes criticism too seriously and too personally and his response style is snarky, bitter and very very lengthy. He does himself a disservice that, even among Kiwis, who are the most understanding breed in the world, his character is a trator to his good intentions.

If I were to go on further I would mention a few of the many times Jim encouraged and supported both education and activism in the course of Objectivism and classical liberalism. He was always ready, always interested in things at times when the Libertarianz party were taking the customary sleep between election years. When we first had our Libertarianz On Campus meetings in his bookshop I was a bit concerned that he would interject. He was in the room and you know damn well he had decades worth of strong opinions and contributions bursting to be made to everything our university group discussed- but true to his word he never made a peep, just left us to it. The shop was a port of call for all sorts of liberal-minded folk, I met all sorts of people there- friends, celebrities, polititians.

Everything Julian P has said above about Lindsay Perigo is perfectly right, I would add nothing to that. I'm entirely sure Perigo would rather never hear of Peron again than persue such involvement! I don't like the way Peter Cresswell keeps fighting dirty, slinging mud at Peron over and over as if he's mortally threatened and I especially don't like the way your Winefield-types keep doing the same by way of paying homage to the demigods of power. Luke and Ms Kat seem to be doing that too, which would be a disgusting prostitution of your own powers of discrimination. Jim is just 'a character', like so many of the rest of us are too. He can be bitter, pathetic, annoying, wrong, long-winded and childish, and hated for it, but Adam Reed is right- this doesn't warrant the treatment Peron is being dealt; Neither the hearsay mudslinging nor the Winston Peters/Chief Censor state team-up against an innocent man. Yes, you hate Jim Peron. Given more time I might do too! But this is what the statue of 'blind justice' represents, the blindfold is supposed to shade the bias, leaving us only disinterested persuit of justice.

State exile is not a thing of the past, usually one thinks of a Thomas Payne or a Jean-Jacques Rousseau not a New Zealander in 2005. But it has never been a thing taken lightly. So before you judge please consider what you know about him. You don't have any proof, only hearsays and opinion about a set of values Jim is supposed to have and that a Chief Censor Commisar doesn't approve of his character (this is a bad thing?). But there are facts about the good work Jim has done and for what it's worth I put my own opinion of him opposed to all the rest. I had never heard of these matters before and I for one am not going to make up my mind based on the adhesive properties of mud. He's a friend to me and the worst crime that he's ever done, to the cost of his character, is over-specialising in the politics of freedom.

Rick.


Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Post 25

Wednesday, July 13, 2005 - 8:15amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Rick Giles wrote:
I don't like the way Peter Cresswell keeps fighting dirty, slinging mud at Peron over and over as if he's mortally threatened and I especially don't like the way your Winefield-types keep doing the same by way of paying homage to the demigods of power. Luke and Ms Kat seem to be doing that too, which would be a disgusting prostitution of your own powers of discrimination.
Since you claim to know Jim Peron so well, I only need you to answer one question, Rick:

Did Jim Peron openly advocate sexual relations between adults and children?

If yes, that surely qualifies him at least as providing moral aid and comfort to pedophiles, even if he never indulged himself.  I would want nothing to do with such a person.

If no, then please explain how he managed to get himself into this position of having so many fingers pointing at him saying that he did.  Am I really supposed to believe a conspiracy theory?

(Edited by Luke Setzer on 7/13, 8:34am)


Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Post 26

Wednesday, July 13, 2005 - 8:52amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Rick Giles wrote "especially don't like the way your Winefield-types keep doing the same by way of paying homage to the demigods of power"

So Rick you like and respect Jim Peron. Good for you. One hopes that he will never do anything to diminish that respect.

As for the rest, I am used to being accused of begin a Perigo-lackey, it is a tired concept and no longer has any sting.

What I am not used to and what I will not tolerate is having my family name smeared for something *I* believe in. There is an entire clan of Winefield's in New Zealand and Australia, at least four of whom have PhDs and are thus semi-public figures. Kindly adjust your insult to read "Robert-Winefield-types..." so that your venom is directed at the person whom it is intended for.

(Edited by Robert Winefield on 7/13, 12:53pm)


Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Post 27

Wednesday, July 13, 2005 - 11:01amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Rick,

I see you standing up for a friend and that is a value I hold. I admire that. We have common ground here, but unfortunately little else.

I find your "pity" of the specialist lifestyle pretty silly, but what the hell. Go for it. Happily for me, at least, great achievers will continue to enrich my life (and all of our lives). I am grateful to them and I certainly do not pity them.

It is funny how a lack of focus will make a person say entirely incorrect things in the heat of passion. You stated that Kat, my Kat, and Luke "seem to" pay "homage to the demigods of power."

Well that gave me a start so I reread their posts. Nope. Like Vonnegut says about the problem of humanity in Cat's Cradle, "No damn cat. No damn cradle." In this case, "No damn homage. No damn demigod."

Strikeout!

(Oops, sorry. You don't bat well apparently because you don't like specialization...)

What I did see was a virulent hatred of pedophiles and those who cater to them. Both Luke and Kat. I not only saw that, I concur. I loath this crime. People who have the voices in their head have my sympathy if they seek treatment. Those who do not and especially those cater to them have my total contempt.

I agree with Adam about defending the rights of the more distasteful members of society. If that distaste extends to pedophiles, however, whether convicted or not, or to those who cater to pedophiles, then that is much more than taste. I not only disagree, I think the "rights" stance is pure folly.

If a fact like catering to pedophiles can be proven, but no legal action was taken at the time and can no longer be taken because of legal loopholes, then I find using other legal measures quite acceptable - not a violation of any right at all. But if such fact cannot be proven, then it is a violation and an abuse of power.

Thus I am in full agreement with using what you can to get the bad guys. Al Capone did not go to jail for the crimes he committed. They took him down for tax evasion. Legal loopholes were circumvented to get the bad guy. Legal loopholes are not "rights." They might look like rights but there is a very sharp difference.

Now is Peron a bad guy? I don't know him. I know very little about him. I see many people I respect hating him. I see others I respect defending him.

So I have some questions - and this extends to anybody who can answer. I am sure that many others have similar questions.

1. What is the root of such hatred of Peron by so many good people? From what I read on this thread, it basically is not the catering to pedophile business (although that alone, if true, is enough to warrant my complete contempt). That seems to me like the "tax evasion" thing that took Capone out. This issue looks like it runs much, much deeper.

2. Where can I find accounts about what went on in New Zealand between Peron and Linz? I am, of course, interested in Linz's account. I have yet to see him lie (and I do hold much love for him). But he hates and I have learned the folly of getting caught up in someone else's hatred without knowing the facts.

3. I am also disturbed by the implication that all of Peron's stuff is in New Zealand and he can't go get it. Is that true?

4. Why are not Peron's defenders not contesting the catering to pedophile charge? That to me would be the first order of the day.

5. Last but not least, what about Peron posting here on Solo and giving his side - at least of the catering to pedophile charge? Or would that be like walking into the lion's den to him? Would Linz and the ones who hate Peron even want that?

Michael



Post 28

Wednesday, July 13, 2005 - 11:25amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
MSK, wasn't he banned?  I recall he came to SOLOHQ to refute charges of being a pedophile-enabler, but that was a while ago...not exactly sure what happened, but I think Linz/Joe/Jeff/Jesus thwacked him with the ban-hammer.  Check the anchovies, I suppose.  Err...archives....to read what took place. 

Sanction: 7, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 7, No Sanction: 0
Post 29

Wednesday, July 13, 2005 - 4:23amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Adam, perhaps what is needed is a clearer account of what sort of actions constitute complicity in the commission of someone elses crime. You mention helping a criminal perpetuate a crime or escape prosecution, this is quite broad. Afterall, the existence of public highways assists people in committing crimes and in getting away and as much as one may oppose public highways we wouldn't want to say that the state is aiding and abetting criminals by providing roads.

A person I knew was prosecuted for P manufacturing because he knowingly allowed a room in his house to be used by a group of people who manufactured P as their laboratory. If this is aiding and abetting, could it be argued that giving a home to a child molestation ring to meet and organise and validate each other in one's store constitute aiding and abetting?

Does anyone have a helpful definition of abetting?

Matt


Post 30

Wednesday, July 13, 2005 - 1:09pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Ahh, here we go.  Scroll down a bit past my bloviating and you'll run into Bill Dwyer's initial (I believe) post on the matter, with (extensive) reponses from Peron:
http://solohq.com/Forum/GeneralForum/0074_1.shtml.

On the first page of that thread, Linz brings up Jim Peron's alleged involvement with NAMBLA, to which Peron responds:
http://solohq.com/Forum/GeneralForum/0074.shtml

Don't think he was banned.  I think folks stopped caring or something.  Or he shut up because he didn't have anything to add.


Sanction: 13, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 13, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 13, No Sanction: 0
Post 31

Wednesday, July 13, 2005 - 2:53pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
This morning, I've indulged in my habitual virtue of induction, and now I am absolutely amazed by the power of the "pedophilia" archetype to switch off, in the brains of people who should know better, the entire faculty of critical, conceptual and principled thought. Consider the data from this one thread:

In post 1, Lindsay Perigo refers favorably to his country's Chief Censor, as though it were possible for a man of integrity to perform such an office.

In post 2, Peter Creswell writes approvingly of the exercise of arbitrary bureaucratic force - separating a man from his home, his family, even the archive of documents with which he might cast doubt on the state's supposed rationale for its action - against an individual who was never even indicted, much less convicted, of any actual crime.

In post 27, Mike Kelly endorses the state's use of tax laws that make every man a criminal, wiping out the primary function of laws, which were invented to limit what the state might tolerably do to people. Say "pedophile," and the entire structure of civilized law suddenly (and delusionally) is seen as a "loophole," protecting the pervert merely because he has not actually broken any objective laws.

Let us look at the evidence on this thread in the light of what we know about the human mind. There is no "creator," no "intelligent design" at work in the organism. There is a lot of pre-human, pre-conceptual evolutionary baggage. It is always on stand-by, ready to take over if you don't put your conceptual faculty in its way. Letting yourself react to an archetypal trigger, is like handing anyone who knows the not-so-secret password a remote control over the human faculties of your mind, shutting them off when the man with the remote control presses the "OFF" button. You can, and should, know and do better.

Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Post 32

Wednesday, July 13, 2005 - 5:20pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Adam,

Well, I sure am glad you got that off your chest. Since you have stated outright that I endorse "wiping out the primary function of laws" and implied that I want to "make every man a criminal" through use of tax laws (you forgot to include an adjective so that it reads "constant use of tax laws" here, Adam, as you implied, but that might have contradicted with your slant since anybody who knows my thinking knows this whole insinuation of yours to be false), well I could use the same line of reasoning for your arguments. That's only fair, right? So why don't I?

I see that you, Adam Reed, believe that Al Capone's rights were violated because he was merely a "least attractive practitioner" and it certainly is comforting to know that the poor victims of society like Mr. Capone now have such a distinguished champion. Happy Valentine's Day everybody.

Did I get that right? How about this? Is the phrase "least attractive practitioner" now the Objectivist secret password? Just say it and you no longer have to do anything about people like Al Capone or pedophiles if you run out of legal options? That's how you defend them morally? Well what do you do when they go after the people you love and care about?

Just cope? Thanks but no thanks.

You go live with Capone and pedophiles. Not me and not my family.

But I gotta give it you, "least attractive practitioner" does work as a magnificent example of "handing anyone who knows the not-so-secret password a remote control over the human faculties of your mind, shutting them off when the man with the remote control presses the "OFF" button."

That's the only thing that makes any sense to me as to why you, with that magnificent brain of yours (and I mean that), would defend Al Capone or pedophiles is victims when a legal alternative is found to nail their asses.

Now, instead of just looking at the evidence on "what we know about the human mind," why don't we look at the evidence for what is being discussed, Mr Peron himself? Is he a bad guy or is he not? I believe I asked for help on this already. Did you, by the way, read my questions in that post and not just the part you didn't like that caused the knee-jerk?

To tell the truth, I am most interested in discovering the facts so that I can make a rational decision for myself on this matter. A person I love dearly has suffered unspeakably by watching pedophiles (that's right - plural, and not just two... more) mutilate the souls of people she loves (that's right - plural, and not just two... more) over the course of her life. If Mr. Peron is one, or has catered to this scum, I want nothing to do with him ever - and I will be a very hostile person if we ever should cross. If he is not - if all this is just character assassination, then it is completely despicable and has to stop. The people on this site are much better than that.

Calling someone publicly a pedophile or a caterer to pedophiles is serious business. A government has become involved and is alleging this. Mr. Peron apparently is an important person in the Libertarian movement. Rationally, everything I have read so far boils down to some people saying Peron is and Peron saying he isn't. Nothing more (but I am still reading). That is why I asked for facts.

Do you have any? I would be very grateful if you did.

Michael


Sanction: 9, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 9, No Sanction: 0
Post 33

Wednesday, July 13, 2005 - 6:54pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Michael,

I have the same facts we all do. Peron has been a public figure, and an activist against political power, for most of his life. People like that are under constant scrutiny by government organs and by the public. The probability that he would have been able to breach the law without prosecution is close to zero.

And no, the question is never "is he or isn't he." When it comes to justification of force, the question can only be "did he ever?" Did he ever sexually abuse a child, aid in the sexual abuse of a child, or abet (that is, interfere with the prosecution of) the sexual abuse of a child? Given the constant scrutiny to which a person in his position is subject, by now I consider it a near certainty that he never did.

As for what he thinks, what he writes, what he feels, or what he jerks off to, that is none of the state's business. Because if it were, then it would also be the state's business what any of us, including yourself, think, write, feel, or jerk off to. And I don't want it to be the state's business for me. But if you like the idea of it being the state's business for you, I'll be happy to look up the address of the Iranian consulate for you.

Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Post 34

Wednesday, July 13, 2005 - 7:10pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Madeleine Flannagan seeks an "on the ground person in San Francisco."  I'm not sure exactly what she wants, so I'm not necessarily volunteering (even if she'd have me).  But I live in San Francisco.  I was here when Eric Garris owned the bookstore in question, and I was here when Jim Peron took it over.  I know Ron Dorsey, and I know that there's more to be said about his role in the whole story than is evident from Eric Garris's extremely terse e-mail.
Let me elaborate. If I could concrete up the dates NAMBLA met in his store that would be helpful simply because it would expose whether Peron is right or we are right about that timeline. This is something Peron is still denying.

NAMBLA pointed me to newspaper records where they regularly advertised their meetings. San Francisco library must have archives of these newspapers from the time so if someone could access those and tidy up the timeline dates.

Another way of tidying up the timeline would be to track the Pride Foundation Centre on Hayes st and when exactly it shut down/changed hands so NAMBLA had to move to the bookstore. There must be San Francisco records of that.

The San Francisco police is a big one. Seargent Tom Eisenman was the officer in charge of the undercover investigation into the NAMBLA meetings in Jim's store. He led the raid on Jim's store and arrested David Simons, Jim's employee plus other paedophiles who met in Jim's store over the years. There is a San Francisco police officers association so even in Eisenman was retired someone must know where he is. What about the records on that investigation, there must be some way to access them and surely they would have observations about Jim's role in it all. Sometimes the police will overlook lesser crimes for the sake of their undercover operation or for the bigger fish. It would be good to find this out.

We emailed the police but never had a reply and the officers association did not have a listed email address. Someone in San Francisco could pursue this lead better than we could.

Finally the Ron Dorsey angle. Eric did say a lot off the record. I suspect Dorsey's role is somewhat like the following:
Garris employed Dorsey as a clerk. Garris wants out of the store, goes to Jim, Jim agrees to take it over but needs time to move out to San Francisco, Garris just wants out. The store is transferred to Jim's name in early 1985, March from memory, and Dorsey takes over the running of it until Jim arrives as Garris is less interested in it since it is no longer his. Jim moves out to San Francisco. Dorsey was never a registered owner according to San Francisco records.

Jim maintains that Dorsey was a former owner and as a condition of sale made him sell NAMBLA's bulletin and Dorsey allowed NAMBLA to meet in the store in late 1985/1986. Jim reluctantly agreed but as he grew more uncomfortable with NAMBLA he threw them out. The impression is that he inherited a bad situation and cleaned it up.

The problem is that Dorsey was not an owner so selling the bulletin could not have been a condition of sale. Dorsey may well have let NAMBLA come in and meet there before Jim arrived, Jim has a habit of twisting the facts to give a false impression of the truth so this probably fits nicely, but the dates make even this suspect as Jim arrived there at the end of 1985 and NAMBLA did not leave his store until August 1989 at the earliest and Jim sold his store at the end on 1989 which does poke holes in the 'I became uncomfortable with them and threw them out' theory, it looks more like they left when Jim left.

Anyhow, the truth is what i am interested in so Jeff if you would like to volunteer to find any of this stuff out that would be great.

Madeleine




 


Sanction: 3, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 3, No Sanction: 0
Post 35

Wednesday, July 13, 2005 - 7:55pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Madelaine,

You write, "Sometimes the police will overlook lesser crimes for the sake of their undercover operation or for the bigger fish." In this context? I've had some nasty encounters with police, but not even I would imagine American police permitting the sexual abuse of an actual child to continue, or to go unpunished, for any reason.

What I see you doing is typical primacy-of-consciousness stuff: when you find no evidence for your beliefs, you become ready to believe ever more incredible things, to hang on to your conjectures regardless of what the reality is. As someone who lives in America - and in reality - I find the above bizarre.
(Edited by Adam Reed
on 7/13, 7:57pm)


Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Post 36

Wednesday, July 13, 2005 - 7:55pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
1. What is the root of such hatred of Peron by so many good people? From what I read on this thread, it basically is not the catering to pedophile business (although that alone, if true, is enough to warrant my complete contempt). That seems to me like the "tax evasion" thing that took Capone out. This issue looks like it runs much, much deeper.
I can only speak of my own observation but I think Rick summed it up well, "he takes criticism too seriously and too personally and his response style is snarky, bitter and very very lengthy." This is true of what I have seen of him whilst being on a discussion group with him, Free Students Network (the archives can be found on yahoo.com). However, I would add very to both snarky and bitter. I would also add that he can be very irrational and blind to any criticism of his own position to the point he views it as a personal attack and begins to psychoanalyse the person.

In my instance he decided that since I am a Christian with presbytarian/reformed epistemological views that I was one of the nasty rotten Calivinists who secretly hate freedom and of course hate gay men like himself. He has called me all sorts of names most commonly a fundamentalist nutter or a hate-filled Calivinist. He fails to understand the meaning of both fundamentalist and Calvinist and refuses to hear the fact that the book he once read that gave him his definition might have been flawed and that there are vast writings on Fundamentalism and Calvinism that are far more scholarly and accurate that are at odds with his own interpretation. Any and all attempts to point this out, to rebut his position were slated as examples of our hatred for him, our desire to hound him and our homophobia in general.

Add to this is utter refusal to accept that we were both Christian and Classical Liberals - such things are square circles to Peron, we were in fact lulling everyone over so we could secretly plot our real agenda to rob everyone of freedom and of course persecute gays. He would state that we had told him of our real agenda which we had said was x, y, z and that we were lying when we denied this.

Enter his cronies who engaged in sexual abuse of me, and ranted abusive ad hominems at us daily and joined with Peron is absolute defamatory slander about our conduct, claiming we had a history of attacking gays and leaving excrement and knives in gay peoples letterboxes. Utterly false.

You can imagine how after 3-4 months of facing this every day I grew to dislike him a little. His comments were totally unreasonable and way off base and seemed to me to stem from his dislike of conservative Christians who are influenced by the puritan/Calvinist/Classical Liberal tradition.

I found him the most obnoxious, irrational and ill mannered and unwilling to listen to anyone person I have ever encountered in my life. Yet through this all I still would on occaision naiively attemtp to reach out to him, to find common ground off the email group through personal emails - he was incredibly viscious in response. Stunningly so.

When I heard about the paedophile rumours links from a concerned New Zealand politician, not Winston Peters, I decided to check them out. I did not expect to find anything and reasoned that this man might be a nasty, insecure piece of work but this was a rotten thing to say about him. However, I found major smoke and quickly found the fire that proved the rumours I had been told by this politician were all true.

Then Winston Peters called him a paedophile and made some 20 accusations of him having links to paedophilia, the media circus began with Jim sobbing it was all lies, all of it. Public opinion went Jim's way and people's reputations like Linz, Winston Peters, Bill Dwyers began to get trashed, utterly ruined. The best political party in our government were defending Peron and risked going down in flames if the truth came out.

We held the evidence so we took 5 and spent a whole day discussing what to do with it. We realised that as citizens we had an obligation to take this information to the authorities first and foremost, at the time we did not forsee the retroactive law aspect, so we gave everything we had to the police, to immigration and the department of internal affairs.

We then contacted the political party leader who was defending Peron and filled him in.

We then handed the information to Winston Peters so that the public record could be set straight - this was the hardest part of what we did as politically we are very at odds with Winston Peters politics.

 
3. I am also disturbed by the implication that all of Peron's stuff is in New Zealand and he can't go get it. Is that true?

Yes, this is true. I too am disturbed by this.

 
4. Why are not Peron's defenders not contesting the catering to pedophile charge? That to me would be the first order of the day.
Some of them are or have done so in passing but it is not their focus, their focus is the conspiracy theory that the government is doing this because Peron was friends with this good political party/because they are sucking up to Winston Peters. And of course that we just hate Jim because he is gay.

The attempts to contest the catering to paedophile charge run along the lines of Peron never wrote the part of the article advocating for paedophilia. Someone stole his story of being abused from his computer, it was private not meant for publication and added that part in. Further, Unbound was not published by him, but some guy called Tim, he knew nothing of it despite all cheques and mail for Unbound being addressed to Free Forum Books. 

Or, they say that when he referred to boy lovers he meant men who cared about giving boys role models and not paedophilia - but the context makes a mockery of this explanation.

 
5. Last but not least, what about Peron posting here on Solo and giving his side - at least of the catering to pedophile charge? Or would that be like walking into the lion's den to him? Would Linz and the ones who hate Peron even want that?
This I find telling, because when Winston Peters levelled his charges in parliament Peron sucked up every single media opportunity on offer and wrote two articles called the Whole Truth, appeared on major news programs, on radio, etc.

The minute Unbound surfaced he has said nothing. Not even a statement through his lawyer. All we hear now is second hand through his inner circle "Jim said...." He writes occaisionally on the Institute for liberal Values email list but mostly its about his feelings, his persecution by us and rants about the hate filled fundamentalist nutters and the evil Linz and Winston Peters.

Madeleine


Post 37

Wednesday, July 13, 2005 - 8:46pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
This is what Peron is up to currently: http://www.lookinginnz.blogspot.com

On this blog Matthew Flannagan posted asking for evidence to be presented that we have a history of attacking gays. Instead of responding with said evidence, which does not exist, he deleted Matt's post and left the unsubstantiated claims and innuendo up.

Madeleine


Sanction: 2, No Sanction: 0
Post 38

Wednesday, July 13, 2005 - 10:22pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Madelaine,

Thank you very much for taking the time to answer my questions.

As to facts, before you even posted your answers to my questions, I took a look at your profile, saw the link to the Locke Foundation, went there and had a good look around.

I am almost finished with the this Report on Peron of the Locke Foundation, and it is an amazing document. It is pretty damning on the catering to pedophiles question. As I understand it, Peron did not simply sell Unbound (a magazine devoted to explicit pedophilic culture), the magazine was published by Free Forum Books which was under Peron's ownership and management at the time. You document that quite well. From your documentation, it is clear to me that the various public statements Peron made denying any connection with Unbound are untrue.

There are also the excerpts from Peron's article, Abuse: One Boy's Story, which tells of violent abuse by his father when he was a child and the true affection he found with grown men, including sexual relationships - stressing that the prejudice against this practice of man/boy sexual love by society is all wrong.

I will finish your report now, but from what I have seen, the issue of whether Jim Peron has actively catered to pedophiles is pretty well settled in my mind. I will read other accounts to be fair, but like I said, what you guys did at the Locke Foundation resulted in a pretty amazing report and some serious investigative work. Some parts are too biased for my taste (that business of starting sentences with "but" and things like that), but the overwhelming wealth of facts and statements by several people (which always should be taken as statements only and not facts) speaks for itself. Frankly I am impressed.

I also took a look around Peron's Institute for Liberal Values and saw an extremely good website for free market culture. It is well produced and there is a wide range of classical literature available. Based just on this website, I cannot say that Peron's work is bad or valueless. On the contrary, what I have seen so far is good.

More facts coming as I read about this matter.
 
Michael

Sanction: 6, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 6, No Sanction: 0
Post 39

Wednesday, July 13, 2005 - 10:39pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Madelaine,

You write, "Sometimes the police will overlook lesser crimes for the sake of their undercover operation or for the bigger fish." In this context? I've had some nasty encounters with police, but not even I would imagine American police permitting the sexual abuse of an actual child to continue, or to go unpunished, for any reason.

What I see you doing is typical primacy-of-consciousness stuff: when you find no evidence for your beliefs, you become ready to believe ever more incredible things, to hang on to your conjectures regardless of what the reality is. As someone who lives in America - and in reality - I find the above bizarre.
 You probably find it bizarre because you believe I believe he committed a crime. I did not say he did.

Given the police raids on his store, the arrest of his employee, the undercover investigation into NAMBLA who met in Peron's bookstore, I suspect the police in due diligence would have looked into all the people connected with the store's management. I say this because Unbound documents a police raid where the police took propertly and records belonging to Peron and the bookstore.

Therefore I think that the police might have made some observations on Peron and these could be anything from he was not involved at all through to he was a participant in meetings or something else. I don't know, that is why I think talking to Eisenman might be useful to see if there is something to know.

Your suggestion I do not live in reality and I am willing to fit the evidence to my beliefs is astounding to me.

If talking to Eisenman proved everything I said about Peron was wrong then I would admit I was wrong. I have no prior agenda and you have no evidence that I am being willfully blind.

Madeleine


Post to this threadBack one pagePage 0Page 1Page 2Page 3Page 4Page 5Page 6Page 7Page 8Forward one pageLast Page


User ID Password or create a free account.