Adam your post contains several error of fact, and is frankly slanderous.
1.
the breakthrough in the police investigation of your pal Graham Capill came in February 2005. Peters first voiced his objections to Jim Peron being in New Zealand on March 9th 2005. This proves nothing, but it stinks.”
First you are correct it proves nothing, it’s a case of the fallacy post hoc ergo propter hoc. Second, you fail to mention that Capill’s identity as accused was suppressed by court order which was lifted sometime after Peters made his allegations in parliament so Madeleine did not know it about Capill until after the events in question. I was in fact their when she found out and it was several weeks after the Peters thing.
Second, Capill was not Madeleine’s “pal” he was an acquaintance of ours, whom we had been on cordial relations with until 2003 when Madeleine did fall out with him and his supporter’s politically she had not seen or heard of Capill since. We have cut off all association with him, and publically denounced his behavour as soon as we had evidence it was true. I in fact have condemned him in the media on no less than five occasions.
2. you said Madeleine has argued that there was
some equivalence between Jim Peron's "crime" of putting ink on paper, and Graham Capill's four-year rape of at least three, and probably more, 8-to-12-year-old girls.”
Madeleine has not said this here, nor has she written this anywhere on her blog, nor is their any writings or places I am aware of where she has uttered this claim. Here you simply make an unsubstantiated claim with no evidence.
3. You state that Madeleine drove
Jim Peron from his home of 11 years, and separate him from his lover, and claim that mere expression of indecent opinion justifies this”
Actually, Madeleine did not drive Peron from NZ, Peron left NZ voluntarily, the department of immigration decided to cancel his visa, on the judgement of the chief censor someone Madeleine has nothing to do with. Madeleine had no say or involvement in either decision, she has criticised the lack of due process you mentioned publicly on national radio. Her sole involvement was documenting that Perons public claims, some of which amounted to Slander against Perigo, Peters and Dywer were false.
4. You state
With regard to Capill and Christianism - he believes that concubinage with young girls is Biblically justified; his political objective is a Christianist state that would outlaw homosexuality but legalize marriage and concubinage with young girls if their parents approved.
Again where is any evidence for this claim? you have merely stated it . I know of no statement by Capill to this effect, nor any policy platform he advocated to this effect. In fact one point that has been repeatedly made by the media is that Capill regularly condemned child adult sex, and prosecuted those who engaged in it. This is documented on the web.
Some of his writings about this were on the Web (they were since removed)”
I see there was evidence, but there is now no trace of it. This subjective response is obviously inadequate. By this reasoning, I could say you were a rapist, there is a mountain of evidence for this, the reason however no one can find it is because you have covered it up.
Obviously if one is to make claims like this the onus is on the person who makes them to prove it, I gave Peron that respect, I did not make claims about him advocated child se until I had adequate proof. I expect his supporters to do the same.
“. That is the goal that Madeleine was helping him toward. And, just as NAMBLA was promoting the ideological justification for pederasty, Madelaine was helping Capill promote the "Biblical" politics by which Capill justified his rape of those 3 girls.”
Again false and no evidence, Madeleine has not ever advocated sex with young girls of girls with parental consent, nor has she adopted a theological platform to justify it. Again you provide no evidence for this claim, nowhere has she ever asserted such a position in writing, nowhere has she put her name to a policy platform that agreed with it.
In fact as I noted above, nowhere to my knowledge did Capill advocate any of these things either.
Your response is merely to repeat slanderous and false claims, as part of a fallacious ad hominem tu quoque on Madeleine. It is both false and irrational
5 .I will however add a point about the selective epistemology Peron’s supporters utilise in when they engage in such fallacious attacks. On the one hand we are told that despite the wealth of evidence produced, multiple eyewitnesses, records, writings by Peron himself, corroborating sources etc. We are told that it is unfair to make assessments about Peron’s activities. However, in the same breath, the most bizarre slanderous claims about Madeleine and I are believed by the same people and proposed by with little or no evidence whatsoever.
There is one epistemological standard applied to Peron another to us. This inconsistent epistemic standard is clearly arbitrary and appears to be based on political and anti-theological concerns more than a rational consideration of the matter.
Given the way objectivists castigate Christians for their alleged rationality, I find this ironic
6. Finally, you stated in an earlier post how you were seeking tenure and wanted to guard your reputation against insinuations you supported child sex. I am just finishing my Ph.D and currently seeking academic appointments after that, in the last three months Peron and people associated with him have made all sorts of slanderous attacks upon my character and the character of my wife, with little if any documentation to back this up. I ask you show me the same respect you correctly demand that others show you.
Matthew Flannagan
| 
