Rumors About Linz

I've already learned that severe criticism of ("personal attacks" on) SOLO higher-ups is not tolerated around here, so I offer no criticism and launch no attacks (even though I'm mysteriously under moderation already, despite the number of Atlas symbols next to my name). But I wonder if Mr. Perigo is willing to comment on rumors circulating through the libertarian movement to the following effect: he's accused of going to the New Zealand government and attempting -- successfully -- to have a fairly well known fellow libertarian deported.

JR

Post 1

Tuesday, July 12, 2005 - 3:00am

The rumours are false.

The person in question, Jim Peron, is being refused re-entry to New Zealand from Germany, where he's been organising the latest international anarcho-Saddamite conference, because the Immigration Service deem him to be of "unfit character." They have made that ruling because the Chief Censor�a gay, liberal man�declared a publication by Free Forum Books, when the latter was owned by Peron, "objectionable," meaning that possession of it is now a criminal offence in New Zealand. The Chief Censor examined the paedophile publication, Unbound, after it was tabled in Parliament by New Zealand First leader, Winston Peters. Peters has waged a long campaign against New Zealand's Immigration Service, saying it has allowed all manner of unsavoury characters to slip through the net & settle in New Zealand with evil agendas. He cites Peron as an example.

Unbound was unearthed by Madeleine Flannagan of the Locke Foundation. She & her husband Matt are Christian libertarians who say they were motivated to dig into Peron's background because Peron hounded & abused them for their religious beliefs whilst they were members of a student libertarian network he had set up.

But the Flannagans were not the original source of Peters' information. Neither they nor I know who was.

Because of a prior history of very bad blood between Peron & me, Peron has claimed all along that it was I who drew him to Winston Peters' attention. The claim has a certain plausibility on its face, given Peron's & my mutual detestation (I regard him as the most odious individual it has ever been my misfortune to encounter), but it's just not true. Late last year, Peters' office raised the matter of Peron with me, not the other way round, at the Press Gallery Christmas party. They already had a huge file on him & were about to raise questions in Parliament. I had the briefest of conversations with Frank Perry, Peters' press secretary at the time, which would have added nothing to their knowledge but a little to mine�& that was the extent of it till Winston Peters actually did raise the Peron issue in Parliament in March of this year.

Peters first made his allegations under "parliamentary privilege"�that is, inside the debating chamber, meaning he couldn't be sued for them. He subsequently repeated them outside Parliament, challenging Peron to sue him &/or appear with him on television. Peron has not picked up the challenge, but has instead chosen to make various allegations about me & the Flannagans under various pseudonymous guises on various blogs.

Not long after the matter blew up in Parliament, photographs & drawings of naked pubescent boys were discovered in Peron's Auckland bookshop. These, & a complete summation of the Locke Foundation's case against Peron, can be found at
http://www.lockefoundation.org.nz/research_articles.htm

At the end of the day, the matter of who dobbed Peron in is not the issue. Peron is the issue, & focussing on the dobber is Peron's way of deflecting attention from that. But, since the matter has been raised here, I am taking this opportunity to set the record straight: I was not the dobber. This has already been stated by Frank Perry on the Scoop website. (Frank has not disclosed the identity of the dobber, either publicly or to me privately.)

For the record also, let me reiterate what I have said in the latest edition of The Free Radical. I do not buy into the current fashionable hysteria about paedophilia. I was one of the first people to sign a petition of public figures seeking an inquiry into the Peter Ellis case (Ellis was convicted of paedophiliac abuse on the basis of uncorroborated evidence elicted from suggestible toddlers by deranged feminazis). Nor am I in any sense an advocate of sexual prudery, conservatism or Christian repression ... between consenting adults, anything should be legally permissible, whatever moral judgments one may reach about it; it's quite simply no one else's business, least of all that of the Censor or the Immigration Service. But libertarianism�& much more, Objectivism�is not a license for sex with kids or the promotion thereof, & must not be seen to be. In that respect, leaving aside all rights & wrongs of immigration rules, censorship, etc., I welcome the end of the danger posed to the reason/freedom movement in New Zealand by Jim Peron. In other words, if I were the dobber, I would not be ashamed of the fact. It just so happens that I wasn't.

Linz

Post 2

Tuesday, July 12, 2005 - 5:52am

The responsibility for Peron's problems lies with Peron. No one else. If he wants to know where to look to point the blame he should begin with a good hard look in the mirror rather than spraying half-truths and spreading rumours about blame.

Some people might feel sympathy for the difficulties in which he now finds himself because they've heard a rumour based on a farrago of half-truths. I'm not one of them.

Here's the elephant in the middle of the room that�s the direct cause of those problems: Peron was a professional advocate for sex with children, an organiser of meetings and a fundraiser for an organisation that advocates sex with children, and a writer and publisher of material that advocated sex with children.

And not 'twenty years ago,' as he frequently suggests. The copy of 'Unbound' magazine that Peron published and that was tabled in parliament was put about in the early nineties, not so long ago, and I understand there were even later editions. This rag has stories for titillation of adults having sex with children, and a story of Peron's own awakening to man-boy love. Uugh. If Peron and his ilk are libertarians, then they are the ones Peter Schwartz warned us about, and about which we would all like to close our eyes. But we can't. 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; and who has not resiled from having done so, but has instead denied it in the face of clear evidence and the many attestations of those who knew what was going on including collaborators, former owners of his shop, and those who observed his activities at events, meetings, and in his book shop back then.

It doesn't matter what Peters accused him of for which there was no evidence; what matters is what Peron did for which there is evidence. And for that there is plenty. What there is evidence for is that he did in numerous forms and numerous fora enthusiastically advocate sex with children, and for those organisations that advocate sex with children. Does it disturb me then that his life has been made more difficult, then? No, it doesn�t. He deserves every difficulty put in his path.

IMHO, people that advocate criminal activity ~should~ be barred from entering the country � and I'm sure you agree with me that sex with children should be criminal. Frankly who, aside from Jim Peron and the members of NAMBLA and the Auckland Man-Boy Love Association, would disagree with that?

IMHO it's quite appropriate that such low-life scum are refused entry to New Zealand when their past is exposed. What would motivate such a person to think they should be welcomed in? Should Immigration overlook the past of such a person? Not in my moral universe. Such a person is the reason libertarians advocate immigration controls, so we can ensure that only peaceful people can pass freely. Will mistakes be made in the exercise of such controls? Sure, but this is not one.

Did I help it happen? No, I didn't, but I'm more than happy that it has. Did Lindsay? See above.

Perhaps the experience will help Peron and other libertarians of his ilk to ask of themselves a few very serious questions; and perhaps it might also help some other libertarians to stop cosying up to groups like NAMBLA and their like. And in the meantime, New Zealand paedophiles at least will have one fewer advocate in their midst. That makes me very happy.

Post 3

Tuesday, July 12, 2005 - 6:48am

I wouldn't even let the animal cruelty act protect pedophiles and terrorists.

Let the courts decide guilt, but let the law have all the tools they need to do so - if engaging in, arranging, distributing, forming clubs or what ever else promoting pedophilia -- these humanoid beasts, when convicted, should enjoy no more benefits from any society.

No need for lengthy reasoning. Let them fry.

Post 4

Tuesday, July 12, 2005 - 8:06am

Jeff wrote:

I've already learned that severe criticism of ("personal attacks" on) SOLO higher-ups is not tolerated around here, so I offer no criticism and launch no attacks (even though I'm mysteriously under moderation already, despite the number of Atlas symbols next to my name).

This is inaccurate - unjustified abuse of someone isn't allowed. You can criticise anyone if you can justify your position, these "higher ups" included. If you are always attacking them then clearly you have some fundamental issue with them and should go your separate way.

But I wonder if Mr. Perigo is willing to comment on rumors circulating through the libertarian movement to the following effect: he's accused of going to the New Zealand government and attempting -- successfully -- to have a fairly well known fellow libertarian deported.

JR

Hmm. "Mr Perigo." Don't often hear that - Linz is how we refer to him around here. I wonder why that moderation is in place - perhaps these "higher ups" have reason to believe you're not a genuine SOLOist but a lurking anarcho-Saddamite troll. Perhaps, that is - I haven't read your posts or seen anything to suggest so and, of course, you have all those Atlas points.

Re: Peron. Leaving all his denials aside (which, to believe, you must believe a whole heap of people - with no apparent connection other than an interest in liberty - are lying), he still claims that when he took on the bookshop in SF he was told as a condition of transfer, he must keep the paedophilia propaganda out front where it would be easily seen. Now if he was principally opposed to this he would have refused. So he's either unprincipled or he's not against it. And I don't buy the argument that he was merely facilitating debate - supporting the free exchange of ideas doesn't entail the prolonged prominent display of the propaganda of ideas you don't endorse and should oppose.

Regarding that claim of Peron's, the gaynz website interviewed him sympathetically (accused Linz of putting about lies to destroy the reputation of a fellow gay man with whom he had fallen out) but contacted the guy who owned the bookstore before Peron. The previous owner says NAMBLA had nothing to do with his shop before Peron took it over. (The Locke Foundation reveal the same, see http://www.lockefoundation.org.nz/Testimony.pdf ) So even gaynz, with an axe to grind with Linz, found trouble with Peron's story. Peron, I understand now claims that interview was meant to be off the record.

I have seen the Unbound magazine in question. The magazine claims to be published by Jim's bookstore. He claims somewhere, perhaps in the gaynz or scoop interviews (which you can look up online), that the guy publishing the magazine falsely claimed Jim's bookstore to be the publisher and used the bookstore's PO Box number because he was a subscriber to the bookstore's drop box service (another likely story). The magazine has an article by Peron contrasting the physical and sexual abuse he suffered as a child, the former at the hands of his father and the latter by some fellow who looked after him in his early teens. Peron says the latter was not abuse and attacks gay rights activists who don't endorse Man-Boy Love "rights." I have heard that Peron claims this article was somehow stolen from the computer he had in his store (another likely story) but if you read the magazine's editorial saying what material can be purchased through the magazine it's clear to those who receive Peron's Aristotle's email that the editorial is written by Peron.

As one last reference, how about you check out
http://www.lockefoundation.org.nz/research_articles.htm

In my view Peron has put together an intricate web of lies, taking in many decent people including friends of mine, but reality has conspired against him and the facts have outed.

And what's more, Linz has fought courageously to keep libertarianism in New Zealand from being associated with advocating sex with kids - a fight which involved making a decision early on (when the evidence was scant) based on his instincts about Peron and his belief in the integrity of Bill Dwyer.

Lastly, I was one who helped Peron out when he first got here (for which I received not a word of thanks) and I flatted with him for almost a month when he arrived. The guy is an ungrateful, snivelling, deceitful cunt.

Post 5

Tuesday, July 12, 2005 - 8:32am

I did not know much about Jim Peron before I read all this. He had published decent rebuttals to John Robbins' book Without a Prayer and Peter Schwartz's essay "Libertarianism: The Perversion of Liberty" some years ago and granted me permission to reproduce them on my personal Web site:

http://attitudeadjustment.tripod.com/Essays/Robbins-Rebuttal.htm

http://attitudeadjustment.tripod.com/Essays/LTPOL-Critique.htm

I wonder if I should take them down just to distance myself from him. Neither makes any positive reference whatsoever to sex with children or I would not have posted them. It is now the author and not the content I find objectionable.

Post 6

Tuesday, July 12, 2005 - 8:06am

Whether it's cruelty to animals or pedophilia, let the perpetrators justify their actions. They'll get no help or sanction from me. I don't worry about animal rights, for example. If someone abuses a pet and gets criminally charged, you won't find me with a picket sign down at the courthouse in the name of some arcane ideological purity.

--Brant

Post 7

Tuesday, July 12, 2005 - 11:30am

Luke, I would suggest you take down the material since you now know what type of creature this Peron character is. If he truly practices and advocates pedophilia, it is best to cut all ties. There are many good people and ideas out there related to libertarianism and objectivism but some creatures should not be given a soapbox.

I put this guy Peron in the same category as Stoly as far as being a nutter and unworthy of sanction despite having some good ideas. People look at the messenger sometimes even more so than the message and having the writings of a low-life child pornographer and pedophile on your site is not advisable. I know it was done without knowing what he was, but now that you know its best to remove his stuff. I suggest writing and posting an article of your own to replace what you are removing.

Kat

btw - thanks Linz, Peter, and Andrew for yanking the covers off. Pedophiles are the lowest most contemptible creatures on earth and deserve the worst that society can offer them. Hell on earth, bad will to them.

Post 8

Tuesday, July 12, 2005 - 11:57am

Kat elucidated:

People look at the messenger sometimes even more so than the message and having the writings of a low-life child pornographer and pedophile on your site is not advisable. I know it was done without knowing what he was, but now that you know, it's best to remove his stuff. I suggest writing and posting an article of your own to replace what you are removing.

I agree. I have removed his articles from my site. Thank you for corroborating my suspicions about the best course of action. The last thing I need is to have my name publicly associated with a known pedophile.

Post 9

Tuesday, July 12, 2005 - 12:15pm

But I wonder if Mr. Perigo is willing to comment on rumors circulating through the libertarian movement to the following effect: he's accused of going to the New Zealand government and attempting -- successfully -- to have a fairly well known fellow libertarian deported.

What I find interesting is that the maggot Peron isn't prepared to comment.

When Winston Peters first accused him in Parliament of being a paedophile, he publicly accused Lindsay of orchestrating the entire thing in an attempt to drive him out of the country.

Needless to say, I didn't believe him, and I took him to task on the issue. His response was that he was offended that I'd grill him for details and proof given the stress he was under; for my part I told him that I never wanted to hear from him again unless it was to present proof that Lindsay orchestrated the 'attack'.

I was, and am, angry that I originally defended him against these allegations because at the time I didn't think the evidence against him was sufficient. Then Unbound surfaced, and I realised I'd been lied to and manipulated by Peron.

I've not heard from him since, though I've received threats (some veiled, some not so veiled) from Peron's ~~friends~~ suckers.

Post 10

Tuesday, July 12, 2005 - 12:55pm

Linz,

I hesitate to say anything that could be interpreted as an attack on you, because your work - including your contributions to SOLOHQ - is generally admirable and beneficial to my life and my values. However, I believe that political intervention against mere expression of ideas - even expression that constitutes advocacy of very bad ideas - falls on the other side of the moral "line in the sand" that separates the intellectual's freedom to explore controversies, from actual acts of initiation of force.

There is no evidence that Peron ever abused an actual child, or that he collaborated in some way (such as buying child pornography produced by actual sexual abuse of a child) with actual abusers. In the absence of such evidence, to forcibly prevent him from returning to the residence of his choice is, in actual reality, an initiation of force. It is, unlike anything Peron is alleged to have done, objectively a crime. As Ayn Rand taught us, when people who believe themselves to be our masters seek to destroy some individual right, they will first attack that right's "least attractive practitioners." Jim Peron certainly qualifies in the "least attractive" category. For precisely the reasons that Ayn Rand explicated, this makes the crime that was just perpetrated against him particularly dangerous to every practitioner of unpopular expression, in your country and everywhere else.

I am glad to learn that you, like Jim Peron, are merely an advocate and not a perpetrator of the actual crime.

I have many disagreements with Justice Thomas, but I am in full agreement with his decision on relevant free speech issues in ASHCROFT, ATTORNEY GENERAL, et al. v. FREE SPEECH COALITION et al. It is objectively criminal for a government to deprive any individual of his rights - including the right to live peaceably in the country of one's choice - for anything other than initiation of force, a credible threat of initiation of force, or for creating an objectively demonstrable risk of non-consensual harm to another. Mere advocacy of any idea, however despicable, just doesn't cut it.

Linz, you are a reasonable person. I hope that you will re-consider your position in the light of reason, and that you will eventually come to agree with Ayn Rand on the need to defend a threatened right's "least attractive practitioners."

Post 11

Tuesday, July 12, 2005 - 3:21pm

Adam, I'm sorry but anyone that is aiding, abetting, employing, seeking donations for and providing moral fuel for criminals is not just advocating "very bad ideas," they are in all actuality aiding, abetting, employing, seeking donations for and providing moral fuel for actual crimes to take place.

The members of the North American Man Boy Love Association that met in his store and for whom he sought donations and fronted at events -- the scum who wrote in Peron's rag about the sexual experiences with children for which they were arrested -- the chap living at Peron's store and who was employed there either side of his being arrested for sexual molestation of children -- all were knowingly aided, abetted and encouraged in their crimes by Peron.

To do all the above is to cross "the other side of the moral 'line in the sand'." If he'd done all the above as an 'advocate' for Muslim terrorists I'm sure you'd join me in condemning him, Adam, and perhaps callig him something other than an 'advocate.' 'Scum' perhaps? So why is it that just because it was paedophilia it seems less objectionable to you? I'm sorry, but I don't understand the essential difference.

"It is objectively criminal for a government to deprive any individual of his rights - including the right to live peaceably in the country of one's choice -"

Libertarians argue that peaceful people should be allowed to cross borders freely. That does not mean that one should ignore those aspects of prospective immigrants that make them not peaceful, as you and other libertarians would invite NZ immigration to do.

Post 12

Tuesday, July 12, 2005 - 3:44pm

Peter,

I have seen no evidence of "aiding and abetting" - in the objective sense of helping a criminal perpetrate his crimes, or escape prosecution. Nothing in the published evidence implicates Peron in anything of the sort.

If you have any evidence that Peron engaged in anything beyond legally - and morally - protected free speech, let's have it. Otherwise, might I gently suggest that you learn the art of conceptual cognition?

Post 13

Tuesday, July 12, 2005 - 6:56pm

There are times when merely sanctioning a post isn't enough, you have to actually post something to show your support. For me, this is one of those times.

I'm in full agreement with Linz, Peter Cresswell, Duncan Bayne and Andrew Bates on the issue of Jim Peron. Having encountered him personally I have absolutely no doubt that the accusations about him are true, that the evidence presented is accurate and probably only illustrates a fraction of his nefarious activities. In short if Jim Peron was on fire, I wouldn't cross the street to piss on him to put him out.

I would like to give my heartfelt thanks to Peter Cresswell and Linz for their efforts to inoculate the Libertarianz party against the Peronista virus (to borrow a colourful phrase from Justin Raimondo.) And I would also like to congratulate the NZ immigration service for doing their job properly for a change. The last thing

New Zealand

needs is a kid-fucking cheer-leader, we have enough problems with child abuse as it is.

(Edited by Robert Winefield on 7/12, 7:58pm)

Post 14

Tuesday, July 12, 2005 - 7:31pm

Adam: "I have seen no evidence of "aiding and abetting" - in the objective sense of helping a criminal perpetrate his crimes."

Ah, might I suggest you recheck that evidence, Adam, or have a look at it. Two sources for the bulk of it have been given above. Other information has also come to light that is not included there and is available for the searching -- this situation has been ongoing in New Zealand for some months, and I certainly don't intend to relitigate it all here; I found it odious enough the first, second, third and fourth times round.

Suffice to say that as far as my own judgement is concerned, what I said above is well-supported by the evidence. Well-supported.

"Otherwise, might I gently suggest that you learn the art of conceptual cognition?"

Might I gently suggest that we in New Zealand already have learned that and much more, Adam, and that we've had enough of this issue, of Peron, of suggestions that he's something he's not, of intimations that the only wrong-doing is by those who have brought his past to light, and enough of people pontificating on his behalf based only on the tissue of half-truths that I've seen Peron peddling.

Post 15

Tuesday, July 12, 2005 - 9:37pm

Peter,

I have looked through the links, and I don't see anything of the sort. "Aiding and abetting" has a specific meaning, and I am sure that if there were any actual evidence against him for aiding and abetting an actual crime, there would be a warrant out for Jim Peron's arrest. If there isn't, then it is the initiation of force to which he is being subjected that is the actual crime here.

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."

Now, there are acts of expression that in themselves constitute participation in an actual crime. For example, a man who buys pornography produced by means of actual sexual abuse of a child is, in effect, paying the producer of child pornography to rape the victim on his behalf, and thus is, in fact, committing a crime. Similarly, a political or religious leader who commands an act of murder, or of terrorism, can expect that his followers will follow his orders, and that too is an actual crime. But in the case of Jim Peron, there simply isn't any evidence that he committed an actual crime. (If you know of any such evidence, why have you not sent it to the district attorney of the appropriate jurisdiction, as I certainly would if I knew of any?)

As for New Zealand, the last time I lived in a country that had a Chief Censor was when I was 9 years old. Poland, at the time, was governed by the United Workers (that is, Communist) Party. What is New Zealand's excuse?

(Edited by Adam Reed
on 7/12, 9:46pm)

Post 16

Tuesday, July 12, 2005 - 10:01pm

Adam,

Just a nitpick. You don't have to be charged and convicted of grand larceny to practice it or even characterize the act by that term.

("I engaged in grand larceny but I was not charged or convicted" is a perfectly reasonable and corrrect statement.)

I believe that Peter's use of "aiding and abetting" is in this sense.

But I agree fully with you on sending evidence of criminal acts to a public prosecutor (hell, file a complaint at a police station). Unfortunately I do not know the particulars of this well enough to say much, whether or not a statute of limitations has expired, for example, but taking it to the proper authorities is something that should be done if it is within the realm of the doable.

Michael

Post 17

Tuesday, July 12, 2005 - 10:49pm

Adam wrote:

As for New Zealand, the last time I lived in a country that had a Chief Censor was when I was 9 years old. Poland, at the time, was governed by the United Workers (that is, Communist) Party. What is New Zealand's excuse?

Unfortunately, we are, for all extents and purposes, a Communist country.

Post 18

Wednesday, July 13, 2005 - 12:04am

Let's get back to the point, which is Jeff Riggenbach's not-so-subtle accusation against Linz. He alleges that Linz went to the government with evidence against Peron.

From my knowledge of the facts, and conversations with a number of people, especially a number of face-to-face conversations with Linz, I am convinced that Linz did not have the evidence in question and did not turn Peron in.

Yes, Linz can't stand Peron, for very good reason, but he is not the only one. There are many others who feel the same. Why is Linz the prime suspect, especially considering there is no evidence against him? This all smells too much like a smear-job by an impotent and hurt enemy, who only has rumours at his disposal.

Lastly, Linz has his faults, but he is definitely not a liar or a sneak. I have never met a person with less guile than Lindsay Perigo. This is possibly why he has clashed with so many people. He says what he thinks, openly, honestly, condemning stupidity and vice wherever he sees it. I can assure you, if he had the damning evidence, he would have shouted it from the rooftops.

Post 19

Wednesday, July 13, 2005 - 12:41am