Rumors About Linz

This is utter nonsense, Adam. New Zealand may be a small country, but it’s not that small. Capill and Peters are hardly allies. Capill is an ex-politician, who’s well out of the game and of no importance in the current political scene. In any case, publicising paedophilia would surely have hurt rather than helped Capill.

Peters’ target was another politician, whom he hoped to hurt via his association with Peron. The two cases are unrelated, their only connection being that they both involve paedophilia. The Capill case involves justice, the Peron case immigration, and different standards and practices apply in each case.

Immigration is a privilege, not a right. Immigration applicants are being judged for their suitability as citizens, they are not on trial for alleged crimes. Obviously, any criminal behaviour of applicants is taken into account by immigration, but other requirements also apply, including “character”. It’s likely that Peron’s residence status was revoked on these grounds. As I understand it, immigration decisions can be appealed to a special tribunal, so Peron may be able to take that option.

In regard to the Capill case, it should be noted that the names of his victims were suppressed, as is usual in these cases. It should also be noted that Capill has several young daughters, and that at the sentencing he apologised profusely for devastating his family. A nasty case all round, and very much of a domestic tragedy.

Brendan

I thought that everyone who posted here was someone for whom actual empirical evidence, such as that amply furnished in the specified links, counted for something. I assumed that for anyone here, A = non-A, black = white, was a no-no. I didn't imagine for a second that respected Objectivist celebs would or could believe that the publisher of underage porn wasn't actually the publisher, even though he'd been clearly identified as such; that someone else published the stuff over a period of years in the name of, & out of the back of, the publisher's bookshop, without said publisher's ever knowing about it until Madeleine Flannagan discovered it in 2005.

For the record, I want to state once again that I have seen published evidence with my own eyes and I it does not weigh on the side of Barbara. 

Let us go back to the beginning, to post number '0', by the person that opened this topic. When a thread has evolved into the destructive spectacle that this one has, it is often good to do so. In cases such as this thread, one may need to step back, and take a look at the thread starter.

Ask yourself, what was his purpose? Here everyone stands 158 posts later, and what has been achieved, and to who's benefit? To help answer the above questions one is often well served by keeping the context of ‘whom’ one is dealing with, and 'what' are the ideas he espouses. This can often help one understand the motivation, and once the motivation is discerned, then one can accurately gage whether ones own participation is a wise choice. 

So I took the time to backtrack past comments by the threads original poster. What I found was a catalogue of insults, derision, and ad hominem attacks directed at Objectivist, and Objectivism in general. The poster originally appeared to speak in defense of his "friend and colleague", the anarchist Saddamite, Justin Raimondo. He has consistently portrayed Objectivist as "dolts", "ignorant" and "delusional". These characterizations have not been limited solely towards the novice Objectivist, but also towards people such as Tibor Machen and Robert Bidinotto.

A quick scan of a few of this thread starters posts and one will find an educated and articulate man. What one will also find is another conspiracy theorizing-utopian-anarchist-revisionist-anti-American-wacko-nut, of the type that has become so terribly prevalent within so-called "Libertarian" circles.

To what purpose? -  To benefit whom? : the answers should be obvious.

I offer a 5 atlas-point sanction to anyone that finds the means to kill this toilet of a thread topic.

George

PS: Whatever the validity (or lack of), of Ayn Rand's original assessment of Libertarianism, I am becoming ever more convinced that it is valid today; in fact, Mrs. Rand may well have hugely understated her objections.

(Edited by George W. Cordero on 7/20, 4:34pm)