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


Sanction: 20, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 20, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 20, No Sanction: 0
Post 40

Wednesday, July 13, 2005 - 11:03pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Adam, I have to say you seem unable to follow an argument.

You say: "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."

But this is not what anyone is saying, has been saying or has been accusing. What he stands accused of is promoting and endorsing sex with children, of fund-raising, hosting, employing, organising for and giving aid and succour to those who do have sex with children and plan to do so again. Got that?

All this has been said many times above, so your only excuse for not seeing it is that you don't want to see it. So do try and actually understand what's being said, Adam, and perhaps try to engage your brain before you suggest again "Peter Creswell (sic) writes approvingly of the exercise of arbitrary bureaucratic force."

That nonsense should be beneath you.

MSK, you said: "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."

And therein is a related problem. In a country as small as New Zealand, having libertarianism associated with an advocate for sex with children is highly damaging to the struggle for liberty.

As I said above, "Unless libertarians of this ilk are repudiated root and branch there will be no future for libertarianism, and certainly none that I would lend my name to.

"So in my view then, it is Peron that is directly responsible for being run out of the country. His own actions, and his own lies about his actions have done it. No one else. All his accusers did was expose the facts, and clear away the half-truths.

"As for the libertarian objections to deportation, personally I see no problems with barring from the country someone that advocates sex with children; someone that has stood up for, associated with and raised funds for those that practice criminal activity." Libertarians favour open borders for those with peaceful intentions. Peaceful intentions do not include giving support to criminals.

Sanction: 6, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 6, No Sanction: 0
Post 41

Wednesday, July 13, 2005 - 11:39pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Ayn Rand identified the issue much more clearly than I possibly could. This is what Ayn Rand wrote in "Censorship, Local and Express:"
"... The issue here is not one's view of sex. The issue is freedom of speech and of the press - i.e., the right to hold any view and to express it. It is not very inspiring to fight for the freedom of the purveyors of pornography or their customers. But in the transition to statism, every infringement of human rights has begun with the suppression of a given right's least attractive practitioners. In this case, the disgusting nature of the offenders makes it a good test of one's loyalty to a principle."
Peter,

Consider the next victim of the precedent that you are promoting. "What he stands accused of is promoting and endorsing tax fraud; of fund-raising, hosting, employing, organising for and giving aid and succour to those who do defraud their fellow taxpayers and plan to do so again."

Or are you going to tell me that the mechanism Ayn Rand identified is somehow inapplicable to New Zealand?
(Edited by Adam Reed
on 7/14, 12:09am)


Sanction: 15, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 15, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 15, No Sanction: 0
Post 42

Thursday, July 14, 2005 - 12:35amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Adam, tax fraud is not a real crime. Sex with children is. I would expect you to know that.

Barring entry to those that advocate genuine crimes is a legitimate function of government. I would expect you to know that too. Look at this guy, for example. I would expect you to agree that he should be barred from entering the UK. If you don't agree then you and I have nothing further to talk about.

I would also expect you to know the difference between the issues of censorship and immigration. That you don't, or pretend that you don't, is cause for concern.

I would also expect you to understand that -- quite apart from the issue of whether or not Peron's visa was revoked, in my view justifiably -- we are entitled to make moral judgements of other human beings, particularly those who claim to be 'on our side.' As I said above, in my estimation, Peron is one of those libertarians that does more to set back the cause of freedom than advance it. You may consider him an ally. I do not. He is quite literally one of those libertarians that Peter Schwartz warned about when taking those of Peron's ilk to be the face of mainstream libertarianism. That may be true in the US, but it certainly isn't here in NZ -- and nor will it be on my watch.

On top of that he is also an odious individual -- in the words of one of those local libertarians who helped in his immigration, we've found him to be myopic divisive and destructive.  He has done more to set back the cause of liberty in New Zealand today than perhaps any other single individual (with of course the notable exceptions of the Prime Minister, the other 119 MPs, and the members of the Green Party.)

So in this case in my estimation the law has acted properly by excluding an advocate of sex with children from entry to the country, and my personal estimate of the  man is that I am very, very glad I will never have to see him again. Feel free however to invite him into your own home. He's not welcome in mine.

(Edited by Peter Cresswell on 7/14, 12:58am)


Sanction: 14, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 14, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 14, No Sanction: 0
Post 43

Thursday, July 14, 2005 - 1:04amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Pedophilia is NOT a sexual fetish and child pornography is NOT a matter of free expression. 

These are crimes of unspeakable evil.  This is not in the same category as being persecuted for your political beliefs, religion or sexual orientation.  It is a crime just about everywhere to possess child pornography and this publication Unbound was promoted and possibly published at Peron's store.  I am personally offended to see anyone defending this like it was something protected by the bill of rights.  It isn't.  Adam, your stance on this really disgusts me.

A country has the right to decide who they want in their country as well as the right to say no based on questions they have on an individual's character even if it is based on reputation or hearsay.  

Kat


Sanction: 17, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 17, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 17, No Sanction: 0
Post 44

Thursday, July 14, 2005 - 1:26amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Adam,

Quite frankly I had been discussing knee-jerks, not jerking off.

I was pretty amazed at your statement:
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.
(My underline.)

If you read the report of the Locke Foundation linked in my last post, you will see that Peron published a magazine that contained material openly advocating the sexual abuse of children and fostered a pedophilic culture through meetings of an organization devoted to child abuse in his bookshop in San Francisco. Many of the members in those meetings were sent to jail (including an employee of his) for child abuse. Peron wrote in that magazine. By publishing Unbound and by providing the locale for the meetings of pelophiles to discuss pedophilic culture, all of which resulted in the sexual abuse of children, he obvioulsy aided in that result.

If you had the same facts I did (as you stated), where does your certainty that Peron never aided in the sexual abuse of a child come from? The fact that he was not arrested? Going back to Al Capone, who also was never arrested for any crime...

Reality check, Adam. Time to wake up.

You made a most curious statement that a request for information from Madeleine was bizarre. Bizarre? Trying to discover facts is bizarre in the USA? Huh?

And you keep trying to justify all this with a point taken from Ayn Rand that simply does not apply. A proven pedophile or one who caters to pedophiles, whether charged and convicted or not, is much more than a "least attractive practitioner."

Going back to your accusation of knee-jerk on the word pedophile, I would remind you that this whole issue is not simply a matter of sexual preference. You make it sound as if it were the same thing as being gay. Or engaging in pornography. Or any other relationship involving consenting adults. Or just jerking off. Well that is completely screwed up. Sorry, Adam. But it is.

You are talking about a practice that mutilates developing human beings' souls. From the experience told me by the person I love, here is what happens to a young boy. With repeated sexual encounters with a man over time, the boy actually starts looking forward to the sex. It is no longer rape. He wants it. He thinks sex with a man is normal and good. He thinks it is special.

Later, when it stops and he understands what has happened, he develops severe issues with all that and his life becomes a series of bouncing in and out of all kinds of values at random. He has an extremely hard time settling on anything important for any length of time. That includes relationships, profession, even recreation. Also his serenity gets shot all to hell, and that is if he's lucky. A neurotic mess is what is normal.

And that's what a pedophile does to a boy. It is for life unless some real serious therapy is provided. That's really fucked up, Adam.

That's not the same thing as a "least attractive practitioner." Not by a long shot. Why on earth you are trying to defend the immigration rights (of all things) for a proven caterer to pedophiles - and yes it has been proven, just click on the link I mentioned - is beyond me. It is beyond you knee-jerking and it is beyond you jerking off. What the hell is going on?

Michael

(Edited by Michael Stuart Kelly on 7/14, 1:31am)


Post 45

Thursday, July 14, 2005 - 1:54amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
The last few posts on this thread are little more than additional evidence for my observation in post 31. I am not unaware that there is a reason for this phenomenon, but what I see is that nothing - not Ayn Rand's identification of the mechanism served by precedents such as this one, not the sound logic of the Supreme Court decision I linked in post 10 - is getting through. At this point I provisionally identify my observation in post 31 as a fact of reality, and so I see no point in continuing this thread.

One last note to readers in New Zealand: the salary you pay to the Chief Censor is utterly redundant. You can accomplish the same effect at any time with one magic word, without paying a cent.

Sanction: 20, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 20, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 20, No Sanction: 0
Post 46

Thursday, July 14, 2005 - 3:19amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Adam, there is indeed no point in you continuing with this thread if you continue to refuse to address the point, or to answer points and questions made in response to you.

For example, just so we can see on what we do agree, I asked you above, "Barring entry to those that advocate genuine crimes is a legitimate function of government. I would expect you to know that too. Look at this guy, for example [an Egyptian academic advocate for suicide bombing]. I would expect you to agree that he should be barred from entering the UK. If you don't agree then you and I have nothing further to talk about."

Do you agree that an advocate for suicide bombing should be granted a visa? Based on your answers so far, I genuinely don't know what your answer would be. And if that advocate for a crime should be refused entry, as I say he should, then why should not everyone that advocates criminal activity be properly refused entry.

So, do we agree on that point?

Or is it that you think that sex with children should not be classified as a crime? I ask because your statements so far, if I may put it kindly, have been shockingly ambivalent on this point.

For example, your 'observation' in post 31 on which you say you are prepared to rest is not an "induction" as you call it but an apologia, if not something that looks like an autobiographical confession: "I am absolutely amazed," you said, "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." [Inverted commas yours.]

Why the inverted commas? Is paedophilia not a 'real crime' in your book? Has its dicussion here turned your own brain to mush, or do you not think it's practitioners should be criminalised? And if you do agree they should be, then don't you agree that their advocates and supporters are in the same position as our Egyptian academic above as regards being refused a visa?

So do we agree on that point?

And further, do you think libertarians should embrace advocates for paedophilia? Do you think NZ libertarians should have grasped such a one to our breasts, as some US libertarians do? I'm asking because all your comments seem to suggest that your own attitude to the legal status of paedophilia, without inverted commas, is your real problem with what's been said here, and with Peron being refused a visa. On all these points just mentioned and already raised above you have been silent, and as they are the entire point of the discussion, it seems only fair that you do at some stage address them.

And let me say just one more time: The issue is not one of censorship. Write that up a hundred times and pin it to your chest if it makes the point for you. It is not about censorship. It is about the sum of actions taken by an individual in support and succour of criminals, and whether or not such a person should be allowed to pass borders freely.

It's on that point that the discussion starts, Adam. Time you addressed it directly.

Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Post 47

Thursday, July 14, 2005 - 3:58amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Adam—when Rand spoke of free speech's "least attractive practitioners" she was talking about conventional pornography, material that she regarded as disgusting, but that involved consenting adults (and I don't agree with her that such material is necessarily disgusting). That meant it came within the purview of rights. What Peron has promoted by definition involves males too young for the concept of "consent" to be meaningful & applicable. He has promoted the imposition by adults of their sexual will on awakening youngsters at their time of greatest vulnerability & susceptibility to derailment. That kind of imposition at that period of development is objectively certain to skew the victim's mind & emotions for a very long time, if not for life. It is vicious & evil & rights-denying. If Ayn Rand were to defend that on the grounds that Peron was merely one of free speech's "least attractive practitioners" then I'm a fan of rap. He was an accessory before the fact.

Perhaps it can be argued that the jailed practising Namblaphiles for whom he supplied the ideological & physical premises should have been jailed & he shouldn't on the grounds that, as far as we know, he didn't act on his vile premises; it cannot be argued for a second that he is entitled to a modicum of respect.

Linz





Post 48

Thursday, July 14, 2005 - 4:29amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Visas are a fairly recent creation of the nation state. They are not a feature of a free country.

Once it is realized that visas should not exist, the question as to who should and who should not be able to obtain one becomes moot.

Post 49

Thursday, July 14, 2005 - 4:38amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Peter,

I do think that context matters here. I've been contacted by a person whose judgement and honesty I value highly - a 4-atlas member of SOLO - who tells me that Peron could prove that most of the allegations are false - but his archives are at his house, where he has lived for the last several years. I think that the lack of due process raises valid questions about the motivation of the government. The way I read it, the government is trying to establish a precedent by which any non-citizen opposed to any law currently on the books in New Zealand can be expelled at the government's pleasure, without any of the normal due process expected of a civilized society. I think that Ayn Rand's explanation for the selection of Peron for this precedent is right on target.

I would be wary of a government that denied a visa to a person because of unconfronted, and unconfrontable, accusations that he advocated pederasty or terrorism twenty years ago. I also know that someone who appeared to have materially aided pederasts in America would have been arrested and charged. If Peron was not arrested in the raid, then I would conclude with near-certainty that he was able to prove his innocence. Of course it is possible that he will not be able to prove it again without access to his archives. And people do make mistakes. As long as he committed no crime, any reasonable government should be satisfied with an explanation and an apology.

An accusation that someone is currently advocating pederasty or terrorism should be investigated, and the accused person should have an opportunity to present his case. I agree that it would be reasonable to deny entry to a person after such accusations have been confronted and confirmed.

At the same time, my own personal preference for women who maintain a youthful personality and appearance has given me some very nasty experiences with false accusations. Some years back, after fake child pornography was planted in my garbage, the police searched my apartment - and confiscated photographs of the woman I loved, who was 53 years old at that time, as more "child pornography." So I am rather sensitive to the possibility that accusations may be false, and the lack of due process in the current Peron affair is something that I find outrageous.

Sanction: 1, No Sanction: 0
Post 50

Thursday, July 14, 2005 - 5:16amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Kat wrote:
It is a crime just about everywhere to possess child pornography...
At the risk of drifting from the central issue here, I have heard that it is legal in Copenhagen, Denmark.  I do not know much about it beyond hearsay.  An old chat buddy of mine in Canada vented to me years ago that her boss had a client who liked kiddie porn and asked him to purchase him some magazines while on business in Denmark.  Ick!  Can anyone corroborate this statement about Copenhagen?


Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Post 51

Thursday, July 14, 2005 - 8:26amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Adam, you wrote:
I also know that someone who appeared to have materially aided pederasts in America would have been arrested and charged.
That's a mighty big "would." Apparently a police raid on Free Forum Books was invalidated because the police confiscated material other than what was in their warrant. Everything was thrown out because of that.

The police screwed up and that proves to you that no pedophilic hanky-panky was going on. Did I understand that correctly?

Getting out of an investigation on a technicality like that does not mean that the person did not practice the crime or aid in it. It only means that he did not get caught.

Please read the report I linked to, that is, if your interest is in actually understanding this issue. I am just as much against condemning the innocent, if not more so, than you are. But that report presents VERY COMPELLING EVIDENCE that simply cannot be ignored by anyone who purports to be rational.

If that evidence did not exist, I would be by your side this very minute - but it does exist. I asked for such facts earlier on (which you did not respond to) and I simply stumbled on this report at the outset. I cannot in good conscious ignore it without invalidating my own mind.

Those young people at the Locke Foundation are happily going about their extremely competent business of compiling documents, quotes from publications, copies of Unbound, public records and statements from many different people, even a member of NAMBLA. Now they are trying to further document timelines through police records and other legitimate elements. (You have called that research bizarre for some reason.)

They have taken Jim Peron's recent statements made in public alleging that he had no really familiar knowledge about Unbound, that he did not publish it, that selling it out front was an imposition from the previous owner of the book store, that he asked NAMBLA to leave his premises, etc. and have proven him to be lying - point by point. They are not issuing opinions. They are providing documented evidence.

If a man states that he made mistakes in the past, but has corrected himself, I see no problem at all with that. But Peron is on record denying everything and even recently has stated that he feels strongly that the age of consent for sex with adults should be puberty. I personally reached puberty at between 8 and 12 years old.

(Edit - I originally wrote "12" at the end of this last paragraph, but that was due to my confusion in the heat of the moment of writing. It was really much younger as I was precocious. But so as not to be accused one day of doctoring my post with false facts, I changed it to "between 8 and 12 years old" to reflect the earlier age.)

I am very disturbed - and apparently so is the member of the Locke Foundation, Madeleine, who so graciously answered my questions - that Peron is denied access to his belongings. Not just because he has any secret documents that will uncover dark dastardly secrets, but because that is simply wrong. But if he does have such documents, they should come to light.

Unfortunately, the number of statements of fact Peron has made in public that have been proven by documented evidence to be untrue does not reflect well on his allegation of the nature of his documents. Still, in all fairness, I believe they should be produced.

If what the Locke Foundation is doing does not constitute proof to you, if only a charge and conviction constitutes proof, then we are moving out of the bounds of independent thinking and into the world of police states - where the police is the final authority on what is true or false.

I can't go there, and neither should you. As you yourself stated about me, you should know better.

Michael

(Edited by Michael Stuart Kelly on 7/14, 1:24pm)


Post 52

Thursday, July 14, 2005 - 9:03amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Adam,

Please answer Peter's questions. Did you go to the Locke Foundation website and see the pictures that were found in Peron's store?

Rick,

Libz On Campus met at Aristotle's when the bookshop was just being set up by Sal, long before Jim turned up in the country. They started meeting on campus as it was closer. I see Peron's inviting LoC to meet there again as an attempt to further spread his divisive influence, first getting students to like him and then attacking Trojans for liberty like Peter and Lindsay (who initially greeted Peron with open arms, http://www.freeradical.co.nz/content/pishow/pi010709.php).

Andrew.


Sanction: 3, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 3, No Sanction: 0
Post 53

Thursday, July 14, 2005 - 10:48amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Andrew,

Yes, I checked out that site. I did not see anything there that was likely to have been the product of child sexual abuse. Nothing indicative of criminality. Nothing that the US Supreme Court, in the decision to which I included a link in post 10, would categorize as child pornography. When I was the age of the boys in those pictures I sometimes worked as a photographer's model for similar ones, and I do not believe that this did me any harm (although I'm less sure that the things on which I spent the money I earned were equally harmless.)

Michael,

You write: "If what the Locke Foundation is doing does not constitute proof to you, if only a charge and conviction constitutes proof, then we are moving out of the bounds of independent thinking and into the world of police states - where the police is the final authority on what is true or false."

I think you twisted things a bit there, back-assward. Items of evidence selected by one side in a controversy to "prove" its point, are never proof enough to justify the infliction of force upon an individual by the state. Among civilized men, force - as in what the government of New Zealand has already done to Jim Peron - requires sounder proof than that. It requires an impartial investigation, and then a process in which both sides can present evidence and question the other side's evidence. The proper moral standard to justify state force against an individual is exactly the proper standard for charge and conviction. It is when the state considers one side's selected, unquestioned "evidence" to be basis enough for the infliction of force - and that one side is the only side allowed to present its case - that we have a police state. And this is exactly what appears to be happening to Jim Peron as we speak.

Post 54

Thursday, July 14, 2005 - 11:19amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
I don't claim to have all the facts here, nor have I ever had any contact with Mr Jim Peron, though I do recall coming across certain of his online articles. A number of SOLOists whose opinions I generally value and respect (if not always agree with) clearly believe these allegations now being made against him. Other SOLOists whom I also value and respect urge caution.

So without wishing to engage in a protracted personal argument, I will say simply that in the absence of any pre-existing conviction for child molestation or similar, I do think due process requires some form of public and open judicial proceeding (if not a fully fledged trial) in which the evidence can be examined by a judge or other independent figure. Due process also requires that Mr Peron be allowed to attend and defend himself, including presenting any documents he possesses which he believes exonerate him.


MH



Sanction: 3, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 3, No Sanction: 0
Post 55

Thursday, July 14, 2005 - 11:32amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
 
Adam Reed wrote of quite a few SOLO'ists:


"You can, and should, know and do better."


I completely and totally agree.




RCR

P.S. For what it is worth (I suspect, little), this will likely be my last post here.  I do not wish to support or to be personally associated with the shameless muck-raking that happens here with such loose self-righteous zeal, and so ridiculously under the guise of some kind of objective Randian or libertarian motivation.  As Reed, Riggenbach, and others have already eloquently stated, the real and actual freedom of expression in the world-at-large (even unpopular ideas) is far too important to be sacrificed to a crucible of paranoia and compromise.


"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."--Jeff Riggenbach
 
"...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." --Adam Reed



Post 56

Thursday, July 14, 2005 - 12:17pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Where did this phrase "least attractive practitioners" come from?  I don't recall seeing it in Rand.

Peter


Post 57

Thursday, July 14, 2005 - 12:41pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Peter Reidy,

I posted the relevant source and paragraph twice, most recently in post 41. RTFT.

Sanction: 6, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 6, No Sanction: 0
Post 58

Thursday, July 14, 2005 - 1:00pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Adam,

Maybe you still didn't read the report I mentioned on the site you visited.

I agree that Peron has the right to present his side. I am not defending that his right to defense be canceled. I am disturbed about that, frankly, and I already have said that I am disturbed that he can't get his belongings. I should have included right to defense.

What I see that happened is that Peron wouldn't let up with his public vituperation and invective against some young people and they nailed his ass to the wall with his own past. Leave morality aside for a second and anyone can see that that was a pretty stupid move on his part - being a public figure and having a past like that. The little doggie he liked to kick around ended up being a baby grizzly bear who grew up real fast.

Since he omitted pertinent facts (given in the report) from his visa application and has publicly denied such facts to the four winds, I can see why his visa is not longer valid. The authorities probably deem that, in addition to the pedophile thing, he gave incorrect and/or misleading information on his application. That is grounds to cancel a visa in any country on earth.

So far, still within the bounds of reality as far as I can see.

But just to keep things real, the magazine, Unbound, that Peron published (which he denied) and wrote an article in had at least two articles describing sex between young boys and men - one describing just the sex and the other going on until orgasm was reached. Does that need a conviction for anybody to understand? This is presented clearly in the report. Just read it.

Peron publicly denied the existence of his involvement in that magazine. A copy was obtained from an American university, where those young people from the Locke Foundation drew the excerpts from. It is proven that Peron published Unbound under Free Forum Books, which he owned and managed. Does not that give you pause at all? You just merely go on and on about non-initiation of force?

Gimmee a break!

Let me be very clear about where I stand, as you have been insinuating wrong things all over the place. I am not defending the cancelation by New Zealand of a visa because of pedophilic activity until Peron gets to present his case. I do defend it if he provided inaccurate and/or misleading information in filing for the visa. That already has been amply demonstrated by documented facts - ones that contradict Peron's recent public statements. Should he wish to present a defense or correct his information, I am sure the consulate will be glad to receive a filing from him.

I have seen enough to know that I personally want nothing at all to do with this man. He is provenly a public liar, he publicly defends even today having sex with children just reaching puberty and he used to publish a pedophilic magazine and host NAMBRA meetings at his book store. Many children have been sexually abused by the people who were involved in these things, which were activities glorifying sex with children. I repeat, Peron sponsored and took part in activities that glorified sex with children. The other people involved in those activities were later convicted as sex offenders. Apparently Peron took off.

Do you still need someone to draw you a picture?

I won't even comment on the pictures of nude boys recently found in his New Zealand store. All of this is documented. Those recent pictures may not technically be a crime, but I am not talking about crime in this paragraph. I'm talking about my personal judgement. I've had enough. This guy does not, nor ever will, speak for me and wherever I meet him, I will be a party who is very hostile to him.

(Should someday he turn over a new leaf, that status could change. But as long as the proven lies and garbage continue, my position is as stated. Make of that what you will - anybody. How I would love to be wrong about this! But I will not betray my mind. Hard factual evidence - not hearsay - is hard factual evidence.)

As to the new grandstand exit, I'm sure that all 47 of that party's posts will be sorely missed.

Michael
(Edited by Michael Stuart Kelly on 7/14, 1:09pm)


Sanction: 16, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 16, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 16, No Sanction: 0
Post 59

Thursday, July 14, 2005 - 9:32amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
At the risk of defending a man whom I have been credited (accused?) of exposing, let me offer the following for consideration. 

First, I am no fan of Jim Peron.  The man is an unconscionable liar, all the more so, because he accuses others of the very acts that he himself engages in:  defamation and character assassination.  Secondly, of all the defamations that he is guilty of, perhaps the worst is the defamation of libertarianism - associating it with the idea that children have the same rights as adults and the capacity to make the same decisions as adults.  Peron is not alone in this view, by the way.  It is more common among libertarians than you might think.  

The question, though is:  Should he be denied citizenship in New Zealand.  The argument that he should has been advanced by several posters, who claim that the advocacy of a crime - child molestation - is itself a crime.  Let me say that I don't think this view is consistent with the right to freedom of speech.  It is interesting to find some New Zealand libertarians claiming that it is, because I doubt that you will find any libertarians in the U.S. maintaining that position.  The First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution has had an especially strong influence on us, which is not to say that our government feels the same way!

We make a distinction between mere advocacy and what is called "clear and present danger."  For example, a person who supports violent crime in principle, but is not plotting a specific act of violence, is permitted to express his views.  If, however, he is directly involved in the financing and/or material support of criminal activity, then he becomes an accessory to specific crimes and is no longer protected by the First Amendment. 

The problem with criminalizing the advocacy of crime is that people can disagree about what should be considered a crime.  Take the issue of abortion.  Suppose a law were passed making partial-birth abortion illegal, and suppose that Objectivists who did not think it should be illegal were to advocate it as a right.  Since it is illegal, they would be advocating criminal activity or what some consider to be the murder of an innocent child.  If the advocacy of a crime were itself a crime, Objectivists would be denied freedom of speech - the freedom to express their views on this issue. 

Now, it will no doubt be argued that partial-birth abortion is not in fact a crime and should not be made illegal.  But the point here is that it is easy to disagree about such issues, and that well-meaning people do in fact disagree about them.  To criminalize the advocacy of a crime is to close off all debate about what should and should not be made illegal.  It is to silent dissent and obliterate all intellectual discussion of controversial issues.

The issue of child pornography is relevant here.  Should it be protected by the First Amendment?  In order for a crime to be committed, there must be a victim.  Now if the child is subjected to sexual abuse in the process of producing the pornography, then we can agree that there is a victim, the child himself.  But what about cases in which there is no sexual abuse?  Some time ago, a mother was arrested on charges of child pornography, after she had taken pictures of her kids in the bathtube and sent the negatives to a Kodak developer.  After seeing the pictures, the developer notified the police, who arrested her.  While at university, I visited one of my professors in her office and noticed a naked picture of her son posted on her wall.  Is this child pornography?  Should the police have been notified and the professor arrested?  You see the problem.  For some people, these pictures would be considered pornographic; for others, they would not; obscenity is in the eye of the beholder.  But in neither case were the children victims of sexual abuse.  In the absence of such abuse, the pictures are protected under the First Amendment.

The appropriate response to someone like Jim Peron is for decent people to ostracize him, not for the state to expropriate his property and to deny him the right to live where he chooses.  What Peron has done to the cause of libertarianism is disgraceful; what libertarians who want him deported are doing to it is even more disgraceful!

- Bill


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.