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 120

Sunday, July 17, 2005 - 8:30amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit

"remember that holding done the '1' key is the universal panic button for NZ cell-phones it puts you through to 111"

That's interesting! I don't think there's a U.S. equivalent to one-touch dial 911 - or is there? If I hold down '1' it puts me through to my own voicemail. Not much good in an emergency.

Post 121

Sunday, July 17, 2005 - 10:07amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Hi Ash,

Depending on how old your cell-phone is you should be able to set up 911 as a speed dial number.

Advanced cell-phones (with user-defined speed dial) tend to reach NZ 6-12 months later than they get to the USA or Japan and even then older NZ cell-phones tend to linger on because they get handed down to cheap-sods like myself. I was able to update my cell-phone three times in NZ without spending an extra cent. The older NZ phones (like the Nokia 5110) have a series of factory-set speed dial numbers.

It just occurrs to me that this may no longer be the case for the more advanced cell-phones being marketed in NZ. But then again after few minutes reading the manual and you should be able to set the phone up that way.


Post 122

Sunday, July 17, 2005 - 4:52pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
OK here are some of my ,admittedly tentative, thoughts on the due process issue

First granting that the lack of due process in this case is dodgy, two things I think need noting.

1. Madeleine has already criticised the way immigration handled the whole due process side of things, On National Radio Linda Clark raised these issues of and Madeleine criticised the governments actions in this response.

2. Even if Madeleine had not publicly criticised the department of immigration then it does not follow that she is wrong or inconsistent. This would follow only if there is a duty to publicly speak out against all instances of injustices that occur. I do not think there is, The reason for this is obvious, the number of injustices that exist in the world are far too many for any individual to be able to campaign against them all. Seeing one cannot speak out against all instances of injustices one is not required to.

Here I think people confuse what is morally permissible (what it is not wrong to do) with what is morally required (what it is wrong not to do) these are not the same thing, if something is required then I must do it, if it is permissible I can choose either to do it or not do it. Speaking out against a given immigration injustice is morally permissible but not morally required.

Second, there are a couple of points about due process issue that I think is worth reflecting on,

1. I think it is important to distinguish the defensive use of force from the retributive use of force. They are not the same. When one engages in Defensive force, one uses force to try and *prevent* a crime being perpetuated against someone in the first place. For example if I see a person about to attack my family with a knife I and I shoot him, the purpose of the force is to prevent murder occurring.

On the other hand the retributive use of force, is force used after the crime has been committed as punishment for its commission. For example suppose a person has already committed a murder and the state through investigation and a trial determines that the person is guilty of this crime, they then use force either incarcerating (taking away his liberty) or executing (taking away his life). But this force is not utilised to prevent the crime occurring it has already occurred. It is to punish him for already committing a crime.

Now I think the principles governing retributive and defensive force overlap to some extent but differ to some extent. And I think it is plausible to suggest that the need for due process is one of the areas in which they differ. The requirement that due process be utilised before a person is deprived of life liberty or property, appears to hold when we are using retributive force, i.e. punishing a person for a crime. One does not normally need due process before one engages in defensive force.



One can think of this in terms of the examples I gave above, when using force in self defence I simply need to have a reasonable belief that the person is a threat before I restrain them. Similarly when a state goes to war, it is justified if it has intelligence reports which make it reasonable to believe it is under threat of attack, it does not need a detailed trial, with both sides presenting its case and a jury etc etc. In standard cases of defence we almost never require this. On the other hand if the state is punishing a person for a crime they have already committed, one does need such things as a trial with evidence tested in court etc. Hence due process is needed for retributive not defensive force.

 
Now when we are taking about immigration and preventing a person from entering the country, it needs to be asked whether the force used is retributive or defensive, and I think the answer is obvious. It is defensive force. When a state prevents a foreigner entering its boarders, it is not attempting to punish the foreigner for a crime he committed in another jurisdiction, the state has no authority to do that. Rather what the state is doing is protecting its citizens from an external threat, in other words it is engaging in defensive force.

Once this is realised it is not clear or obvious to me that due process of the sort we require in a criminal trial is necessary for immigration cases all the state needs is reasonable belief that the person is a threat.

2. There is a further final point, and that is the issue of not disclosing information, if a person enters a country and fails to declare information which they are required to declare, then they are trespassing; they are initiating force against others because they have entered without consent. And one does not need due process to remove a trespasser from ones property.

 

I am not implying here that the New Zealand government owns NZ. They do not. They do however have a legitimate authority over the life liberty and property of Nzers within the limited powers that are granted to them. And on this basis have the right to refuse people entry onto land within New Zealand if they are perceived to be a threat to the liberties of NZ citizens. It is for this reason that a person needs the consent of the state to enter, Consequently if they do not disclose information or lie to the state they have not gained consent and are trespassing and can arguably be removed, without the need for a trial of any sort.

 



Post 123

Sunday, July 17, 2005 - 6:31pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
I already have speed-dials (and voice-dials) programmed for 111 and *555 (the Police comms centre, for reporting problems that aren't sufficiently urgent to merit a 111 call).

Another thing occurs to me - Madeleine, you might want to speak with an out-of-town friend or relative, and pre-arrange to spend a few nights at their place should you see the need to bug out for a while.

Then ensure you car is loaded with whatever it is you might need (some cash or petrol vouchers, snacks & drinks for the trip), so you can just up & leave at a moments notice if you need to. Don't forget a good range of weapons tools, golf clubs, fishing knives etc. too :-)

Post 124

Sunday, July 17, 2005 - 6:31pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Matthew,

Your post is one of the clearest demonstrations to date of the "least attractive practitioner" principle at work. The limits on state power - the protections of the individual against political power - are most likely to be weakened when used against those whom normal human decency would stop us from defending. Extending the concept of "defensive force" beyond the scope of "clear and present danger" is an idea that would never occur to an advocate of individual rights - except when the "least attractive practitioner" principle is at work.

Defensive force is only justified by clear and present danger. You already wrote that the criterion of clear and present danger was not crossed by anything JP is alleged to have done. It is clear that the advocates of loosening the limits against political power are using your decency against your freedom. You must decide whether you will permit this to be done.

Post 125

Monday, July 18, 2005 - 10:16amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Well, Scott, I was simply pointing out that when you were criticizing "Linz-bashers" for what they posted — that is, when you rhetorically asked if "the Linz-bashers [were] SO short an material that they have to post garbage like this" — that you were referring to posts on this site. This might not be what you meant. But Jeff Riggenbach seems to have been reasonable in his assumption that it is what you meant. That's all.

Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Post 126

Monday, July 18, 2005 - 11:24amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Matthew Flannagan wrote, "I am not implying here that the New Zealand government owns NZ. They do not. They do however have a legitimate authority over the life liberty and property of Nzers within the limited powers that are granted to them. And on this basis have the right to refuse people entry onto land within New Zealand if they are perceived to be a threat to the liberties of NZ citizens. It is for this reason that a person needs the consent of the state to enter, Consequently if they do not disclose information or lie to the state they have not gained consent and are trespassing and can arguably be removed, without the need for a trial of any sort."

If all property should be privately owned (and it should), then no one who is not a criminal should be prevented from traveling wherever he or she is welcome on private property.  Thus, living as I do in the United States, I should be able to travel from one state to another without needing to obtain the permission of the state that I am traveling from or traveling to, as long as I gain the consent of those whose private property I will be using or occupying.  One of the hallmarks of statism is restrictions on travel.  No one can emigrate to another country without permission from the state.  One of the hallmarks of a free society is freedom of movement - the freedom to travel and live wherever one chooses, subject only to the condition that one is not a criminal or a criminal suspect. 

Of course, Peron knew when he applied to live in New Zealand that its government was not a perfect model of freedom.   Yet he choose to live there anyway.  I am not entirely familiar with the details of his case, but if it involves his lying to immigration officials, then what does he expect them to do?  Simply ignore the infraction and allow him to continue his residency? 

To be sure, what they're doing may not be right from a libertarian perspective, but Peron knew that New Zealand was not fully libertarian when he applied there for residency.   What country is?  No country in the world has completely open boarders.  One can argue that he deserves "due process," but if he misled them on his application, then he breached the conditions of his residency.  If they refuse to let him return, it is not only because he no longer meets their requirements, but also because he never did.

His anger and dismay over what has happened is no more justified than if he had been denied entry on his initial application.  If he is behind an attempt to threaten and terrorize the Flannagans by having Matthew mysteriously photographed outside his home, Peron's actions are seriously out of line and border on a breach of libertarian principles.  I say "if," because there is no actual evidence that he is behind this, although the timing, along with his recently quoted comments, makes him a likely suspect.  Let us hope that he comes to his senses before it is too late.

- Bill



Post 127

Monday, July 18, 2005 - 1:36pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Bill,

Is there any evidence that JP misled NZ immigration officials? If so, what is that evidence? Has it been tested in an open judicial hearing?

Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Post 128

Monday, July 18, 2005 - 3:31pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Adam Reed asked:
"Is there any evidence that JP misled NZ immigration officials?"
Not that I am aware of, and I didn't mean to imply that there was, which is why I said, "IF he misled them on his application, then he breached the conditions of his residency."  But, from what I understand, he did mislead them on other matters, so I wouldn't be surprised if he did.  As you pointed out, he's established himself as a pathological liar, so I wouldn't expect him to tell the truth in regard to his application for residency, if he felt it necessary to lie.  Again, that does not mean that he did, but do you trust this man as far as you can throw him?  I don't.  And do you think that the New Zealand government would have allowed him into the country, if they knew then what they know now? 

- Bill


Sanction: 6, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 6, No Sanction: 0
Post 129

Monday, July 18, 2005 - 6:35pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Bill,

Did that pathology exist before the current crisis, or was it triggered by traumatic stress from recent events? One cannot deduce from his current state what he was like 11 years ago, and the clarity of his published articles puts all retroactive claims about his honesty back then, into strong doubt.

I can think of at least one scenario that would make all the supposed "evidence" against him entirely innocent. Thanks to the influence of Christianist politicians his significant other was barred from the United States, so Jim Peron has a very personal grudge against them. NAMBLA offers to work together with him as allies against the Christianists, and Peron, because of his subnormal social cognition, agrees and is taken for a ride. Out of social stupidity he helps out, as asked, with their publication and gives them meeting space. Then he doesn't know how to dig himself out.

That's not the only possible explanation, or even the most likely one. But none of the evidence has him placing a child at risk, or knowingly aiding a molestation, or doing anything beyond what any reasonably free society would consider constitutionally protected freedoms of association and expression.

Michael traced the history of non-objective law - designed to ensnare anyone and everyone - back to when it was first used, to "get" Al Capone. People outraged at Al Capone, or maybe just afraid of being smeared as defenders of Murder Incorporated, did not object. Then non-objective law was used against Michael Milken. Then it was used against Martha Steward - who would have thought? But ultimately, what was done to Martha Stewart was started by people who thought that using non-objective law on Al Capone was just fine. When your decency tells you that someone ought to be nailed, and the state asks you for a hammer, remember this: When you give the state a hammer then you, too, have become a nail.

(Edited by Adam Reed
on 7/18, 6:41pm)


Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Post 130

Monday, July 18, 2005 - 7:02pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Adam, you just wrote:
People outraged at Al Capone, or maybe just afraid of being smeared as defenders of Murder Incorporated, did not object.
How about people afraid of being murdered someday? Why do you leave things like that out when discussing this issue? People who are afraid of being murdered by a gangster try to save their own lives. They worry about rights later - obviously because if there is no life, there is no right to enjoy.

I'm sorry, but I cannot adopt a robotic view of rights that simply eliminates taking precautions when there is reasonable doubt. Presuming innocence is well and good when there is no evidence at all. You seem to think that only law officials are able to judge evidence, meaning that if they do not find guilt due to constraints of their system, then the evidence does not exist.

Back to Al Capone, maybe he really wasn't a gangster after all since the law could not get him. After all, there was no hard evidence, was there? From the looks of things, his rights were completely violated. Maybe his descendents can sue the government or someone for libel.

Also, publishing a pedophilic magazine for years and writing in it, and allowing meetings of a pedophilic organization on one's premises, many of whose members were or became convicted pedophiles, does not make one a pedophile, does it? Nor do these activities contribute in any manner towards aiding the convicted ones in sexually abusing their victims, does it?

Does all this at least cause reasonable doubt to you?

Or do you have another quirky speculation where these facts are blanked out?

Michael


Sanction: 10, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 10, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 10, No Sanction: 0
Post 131

Monday, July 18, 2005 - 7:29pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
I appear to be a minority of one, particularly among people who have not known Jim Peron for long. I do not intend to spend my time involved in this ugly discussion, but there are certain things I wish to put on the record.

I have known Jim Peron for almost twenty years. I consider him a friend. He is not a pedophile and never has been. He made what now appear to be some some mistakes, years ago: he questioned, in print, the age of consent laws; he was not fully knowledgeable about some of the people he hired to work in his bookstore and about the person to whom he rented space; he did not throw NAMBLA out of his store as soon as he should have. The result of this is that he has lost his home, all his possessions, his business, and the man he has lived with and loved for ten years who cannot legally join him in America. Never have a few mistakes been visited with such terrible consequences.

Others have commented negatively on his personality. I have found Jim to be intelligent, genial, and a talented writer.

I might add that no one could be more opposed to pedophilia, and to NAMBLA, and to the idea of deliberately assisting pedophiles, than I am. If I for a moment believed Jim to be guilty of such atrocities, I would not be writing this nor would I be his friend.

For how long and how severely can mistakes made years ago be held against him? What is being visited upon him is truly immoral. I urge those of you who have no axe to grind against him to consider carefully your positions in this thread. Ask yourselves if you are essentially taking the word of others about his character and actions, or if you have first-hand reasons to denounce him. I, who have known him for so long, have no such reasons.

Barbara

Sanction: 7, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 7, No Sanction: 0
Post 132

Monday, July 18, 2005 - 7:59pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Barbara,

Thank you for finally joining this discussion. You are right, I don't know the man enough to be sure that the innocent explanation I just posted is the right one. I admire his work, and I very much hope that he is as you have written.

At the same time, I cannot ignore the threat of getting smeared - a threat that was made nearly explicitly by another poster on this thread not too long ago. I'm coming up for tenure at my university this year, and I would never get my life past a defense of Peron if he turned out to have actually done something more seriously wrong than an innocent mistake of social cognition.

My gut feeling is that the whole affair was deliberately timed to obscure other current affairs in New Zealand. A New Zealand Christianist politician by name of Capill recently pleaded guilty to sexual molestation of several children. Not just participating in an organization that also, unbenownst to him, had molesters among its members. Not just helping publish a magazine, or foolishly providing a meeting space to an outfit he was naive about. Capill was the most prominent Christianist in New Zealand; his religious prattle about sexual sin greatly aggravated the torture of his victims. And yet his punishment is likely to be much less than Jim Peron's, for much greater crimes.

Jim Peron's real guilt seems to be, that his burning could provide the smokescreen that more powerful people need to hide from the consequences of real crimes.

Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Post 133

Monday, July 18, 2005 - 8:13pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit

Adam: "I'm coming up for tenure at my university this year, and I would never get my life past a defense of Peron if he turned out to have actually done something more seriously wrong than an innocent mistake of social cognition."

Adam, I fully understand your position.

Barbara


Post 134

Tuesday, July 19, 2005 - 2:51amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
I've been on a family trip to London without access to my computer for the past few days, but I think I must post to explicitly praise Adam Reed's general stance on this thread.

Whatever the posters in this thread think of Mr Peron, everyone agrees that he now faces the revocation of his NZ visa based on the whim of bureaucrats without any judicial proceeding to establish his guilt or innocence in regard of any actual crime.

It may be as Barbara suggests that he is perfectly innocent of all but mere stupidity, it may be that he is an ungrateful jerk as certain of the NZ posters suggest, but absent a judicial proceeding, it should not be presumed that he is guilty of anything substantially nefarious, nor should he be treated as though he has already been found guilty (as a couple of the posts to this thread appear to do).


Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Post 135

Tuesday, July 19, 2005 - 3:52amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Barbara wrote:
he questioned, in print, the age of consent laws;

Barbara you are somewhat mistaken in your assessment here. Peron did far more than question age of consent laws, he justified paedophilia as love and criticised people for condemning it, he wrote, (from Abused: One Boy's Story by Jim Peron):

This has been difficult for me to write about. I have wanted to keep these painful memories to in the past but I recount them for a purpose. I am writing this because I want people to understand what real abuse is like. I constantly read these newspaper articles where a man is arrested for loving a boy and I see how the police, the politicians, and the press call it abuse. How dare they minimize what happened to me as a child by calling these other relationships "abusive"? I know abuse. I experienced real abuse for several years and it is nothing like the typical man/boy relationship.


I also know something about man/boy love and I know it from a boy’s perspective. I vividly remember the men I met after my father’s death. My mother could no longer care for us so she sent us to a military school. It was there I met half a dozen boylovers.


It seems quite natural that these men would come to a boy’s school. I remember them vividly. I remember them because they were the only staff members who gave us genuine affection. They treated us with dignity, they treated us as if we were human.


I can remember the different men. I can remember them holding me. I can remember sitting in their laps, their arms around my waist, their hands resting on my thigh. They saved me. After the physical torture I endured from my father they showed me what sympathy, affection, and love was like. I knew what they were, so did the other boys but we didn’t care.


I remember Mr. C., he was the science teacher. On so many weekends he would take me with him to get a hamburger at McDonald’s or to see a movie. There was his friend Mr. D., who came to work as a substitute houseparent. He used to let me sit on his lap. There was Mr. R. who used to slip his hand down the back of my pyjamas. He said it was to make sure I wasn’t wearing my underwear to bed but I knew he liked feeling my butt. That was o.k. because I liked it too. He called me "Jimmy-James" when I couldn’t make up my mind which name I liked best. To this day I remember him fondly.


The coach, Mr. H. loved to shower with us boys. He smiled a lot at me, especially when I was in the shower with him. He convinced me to try out for the swim team. Mr. S. ran the military program and he was much better than the man he had replaced. He was once a scout leader and every weekend the boys from his old troop would come and visit him. They spent hours with him. He treated me decently and gave me odd jobs to do around campus so I could earn some money.


For five years, between the ages of twelve and sixteen, I spent much of my time with men who were boylovers. At no time did they force themselves on any of the boys. What they did do was genuinely love us and for that I am grateful.


So I can say from first hand experience what it is like to be abused. And I utterly reject the hysteria about the "abuse" of man/boy love. I reject it because I know the truth about abuse. I know what these so-called "child care professionals" have only studied. I have been beaten within the confines of the family and I have been affectionately cradled in the arms of a "pervert." I have felt the stinging pain of a fist across my face and the tender caress of a man’s hand across my butt. As a boy I personally experienced both kinds of "abuse" and I can only thank God that I met these boylovers.
You see those "exploiters of children" gave me back the things my father had beaten out of me. They taught me to feel again. I had to shut out my emotions; to be more specific, I had closed off all feeling of affection, love caring, and hope. I was a cold uncaring child. But I had learned to care again. It was taught to me by the tender caresses of boylovers. It was reinstilled in my heart by their love.
In all these articles about young boys being "abused" by boylovers an odd occurrence happens. The "abused" boys do not turn in their abuser. No, they try and protect him. They continually, voluntarily return to him to be "abused" again and again. No victim of real abuse does this. I never once ran to my father so that I could be beaten. His mere presence terrified me. Children who have truly been abused do not seek out abuse. They do not repeatedly, purposely put themselves in a position to be "abuse" over and over. Today as I am writing this account two boy, 14 and 15, are sitting in jail in Boston because they do not want to cooperate in the persecution of the man they loved. The police, in case after case, force boys testify against their so-call "abusers".

Throughout the gay community, pompous, politically-correct fools, some elected, spout off about "abusing" children. They disassociate themselves from boylovers. They repudiate them. They say, "there is no place in the human rights movement for these people." Gay politicians throw boylovers to the lions every chance they get. All, they say, to prevent children from being abused.


Enough is enough. I have told the hard, bitter truth of my childhood because it speaks to the lies these hysterics are telling. It has not been easy to recount what happened to me. Virtually no one, until now, knows that I, as young boy, watched, unemotionally, as my father died. At his funeral I felt not one bit of grief. But if on of those boylovers who I came to know, who had held me and touched me and loved me, if one of them were lying in that casket, my grief would have known no bounds.

Further, he published a pro-paedophile magazine for 3 years. Read up on Dr Fritz Bernard's sick positive psychological effects of paedophilia work. Peron published him in 3 editions of Unbound and he confirmed it was Peron who was the editor.

My gut feeling is that the whole affair was deliberately timed to obscure other current affairs in New Zealand. A New Zealand Christianist politician by name of Capill recently pleaded guilty to sexual molestation of several children. Not just participating in an organization that also, unbenownst to him, had molesters among its members. Not just helping publish a magazine, or foolishly providing a meeting space to an outfit he was naive about. Capill was the most prominent Christianist in New Zealand; his religious prattle about sexual sin greatly aggravated the torture of his victims. And yet his punishment is likely to be much less than Jim Peron's, for much greater crimes.


Your gut feeling is wrong Adam. We already had Unbound before Capill was charged, before any whiff of knowledge about Capill's crimes was known. I found Unbound and imported it into NZ, several days later Capill's appearance in court was on the news and even then his name was suppressed, his face blocked out, it was another month before he was named publicly. 

Further, I think you over-estimate the power of the religious political movement in New Zealand. It has none.


I agree Capill's punishment was ridiculous, 9 years is appallingly light though he probably will be beaten and raped in prison. I agree Peron should be allowed decent appeal time and be allowed back into the country to prepare his appeal. I am not in charge of the justice system in my country. I have done what I can to call for harsher sentencing of Capill, to speak out in national media about Peron's appeal process.

I did not write for or publish Unbound, Peron did that.

(Edited by Madeleine Flannagan on 7/19, 3:57am)


Post 136

Tuesday, July 19, 2005 - 5:09amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Hi-diddly-do Friends Of Jesus!

Oh my Gosh, we're all going to Heck now for reading that! It's plagiarism in with the bargain too, notice, because this has clearly been cribbed from The 120 Days of Sodom. Or perhaps from South Park. Either way it's no wonder an antipodean Ned Flanders is in a ding-dang-diddily-do-dang flap. "Butt" is not-diddly a Bible-diddly word!

 



Sanction: 3, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 3, No Sanction: 0
Post 137

Tuesday, July 19, 2005 - 7:48amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Matthew,

No, Capill will not be beaten or raped in prison. Politicians are not sent to vile prisons like ordinary citizens; they spend their "time" in the special VIP "prisons" that Robert Bidinotto writes about. Capill - unlike Peron - will be permitted regular contacts with his family, including weekly "conjugal visits" with his wife, who as a "good Christian wife" apparently accepts the Godly authority of her husband in all things. Capill's wife knew about her husband's screwing 8-year-olds for a long time, but being a "good Christian wife" never told the police or warned the victims.

Capill will NOT spend 9 years in that VIP "prison," but three - in New Zealand, prisoners who pled guilty are let out on parole after serving one-third of their sentence. Capill apparently still believes that his victims "consented" to his actions with them. He pled "guilty" to a fractional charge to shorten his incarceration.

It is also false that the public disclosures about Jim Peron predate the police investigation of Capill and his Christian Heritage Party. At the time of the first disclosures about Peron's writings, Capill had already been under investigation for months. It is difficult to be sure about such things, but the most likely timeline is that Capill somehow learned that he was being investigated, and put his political ally Peters at work on the Peron affair to provide a handy distraction. And it's worked like a charm, hasn't it?

Compare Capill's punishment for the rapes of three 8-year-olds (diddling them every week or so for 4 years, until they were about 12-year-old) with Jim Peron's punishment for putting ink on paper, and weep.

Sanction: 8, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 8, No Sanction: 0
Post 138

Tuesday, July 19, 2005 - 6:11pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Adam,

Capill's punishment and crime has nothing to do with Peron and the issues surrounding his deportation from New Zealand. Comparing the two types of punishment and trying to draw parallels is irrelevant to the issue of whether the New Zealand govt is justified in throwing Peron out of the country.

It is also false that the public disclosures about Jim Peron predate the police investigation of Capill and his Christian Heritage Party.


It is not false.

At the time of the first disclosures about Peron's writings, Capill had already been under investigation for months.


Peron had been under investigation by Winston Peters office for over two years. They had a dossier on him that is "2 and a half inches thick." Further, Bill Dwyer and others had been alledging Peron had connections to the paedophile movement for years as well.

At the time of the first disclosures about Peron's writings I had been investigating Peron for 5 days and knew Unbound existed. I had no idea, no whiff about Capill. Since it was the exerpt I pasted above from Unbound that are the grounds the NZ Immigration Service are booting him out of the country, it had little to do with Winston Peters. The Locke Foundation sent Immigration the copy of Unbound, not Winston. Winston dealt with rectifying the lies the public had been told by Peron, he also ensured the matter was recorded in Parliamentary records.

By the time Capill's court appearance appeared on TV with name suppressed we already had Unbound and the copies for Immigration were in the post.

It is difficult to be sure about such things, but the most likely timeline is that Capill somehow learned that he was being investigated, and put his political ally Peters at work on the Peron affair to provide a handy distraction. And it's worked like a charm, hasn't it?


Capill's political ally Peters? RAFLOL those two are not allies. I was Capill's policy advisor and spokesperson for some years, I worked in the inner circle and Capill just did not have powerful contacts. Winston Peters had no relationship with Capill.

Adam, you are clutching at straws. This is not some political coverup and believe me the New Zealand public are far more focussed on Capill that Jim somebody Peron.

The rumours surrounding Peron's association with paedophiles have been with Peron since San Francisco, in South Africa and they followed him to New Zealand where the Locke Foundation heard them and proved they were true.

I understand your reluctance to believe someone you respect, whose work towards your own cause has been important, it has been tough for me to come to terms with Capill's crimes, but don't blind yourself to what he did.

New Zealand's justice system is flawed, Peron should be allowed a proper appeal I agree with you there, but I will not use these things to block out what Peron has done, advocated, lied about and to ignore what he did to honest and decent people who tried to bring what he did to light.

When you choose to enter a country you choose to be subject to its laws, flaws and all. The responsibility for what is happening to Peron is Peron's alone.

Madeleine

(Edited by Madeleine Flannagan on 7/19, 6:14pm)

(Edited by Madeleine Flannagan on 7/19, 6:17pm)


Sanction: 10, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 10, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 10, No Sanction: 0
Post 139

Tuesday, July 19, 2005 - 7:42pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Adam wrote:
At the same time, I cannot ignore the threat of getting smeared - a threat that was made nearly explicitly by another poster on this thread not too long ago.
I don't have the time to go back through all the posts right now - maybe this weekend. If that reference is to me, I never made such a threat. I did respond to Adam coming out of nowhere talking about jacking off - both him, me and Peron jacking off!

For someone now making public his concern for tenure, I find it strange that he posted to me about jacking off at all. Would he discuss jacking off in a formal faculty meeting? Would he discuss jacking off, say, with the college president on a public forum? Would he write a paper under the letterhead of the college about jacking off? I hardly think so.

BUT HE WRITES TO ME ABOUT JACKING OFF!

AND WE HAVE NOT EVEN JOKED TO EACH OTHER BEFORE.

I always demand respect from my acquaintances. That is never a request. It is a demand. I can only term the post he made to me about jacking off as completely disrespectful. And quite frankly, my own respect for Adam Reed has deteriorated drastically in his thread - both from the disrespect he showed me (which, I admit, I responded in kind), and for his seeking any excuse whatsoever to whitewash non-deniable published facts in different publications and not address them.

Now he comes with a conspiracy theory. Well go for it.

I used to think this was a serious man. I now think otherwise. This is just one more person who tries to distort facts in any manner possible to suit his opinions.

Now he can go on to the next step. All that's left really is to postulate that the issue of Unbound under discussion was forged and that all the recent online interviewers quoted Peron incorrectly in order to get him. He can do that if he so wishes. I'm no longer listening. Enough is enough.

About the Peron issue, my loyalties are divided. I must go with my rational mind, since two people I care about dearly are saying things that contradict each other and basing it on their own respective histories. Who should I believe, since neither lies to my knowledge? Both have the highest integrity of any people I know.

I can't even enjoy the luxury of being biased here. So I am forced to go with the objective facts as I learned them. I have a copy of the Unbound people are talking about (which I did not receive from anyone in New Zealand) and have read most of it. It is sickening. ("What do you say to a naked youth, a boy of twelve...?" That's the start. It goes downhill from there.)  I have read several recent interviews (the ones available online) with Jim Peron where he contradicts himself over and over and over again.

I'm very sorry to those I care deeply about who feel differently, but after looking at the published facts, I really don't care what they do with this guy. I don't even think he's worth debating the principle about - what could he ever say that you can believe? Well maybe he wrote a few articles but so did many, many others who are more consistently honest. I prefer to read them. Anyway, OK. Give Peron his day in court if that is possible. I personally want distance. I've seen plenty from his own mouth and pen with my own eyes. Once again, enough is enough.

Michael


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.