Rumors About Linz

Bill, you champion—nice to see you posting here. You paid a terrible price at Peron's vindictive hands for speaking the truth, till you were finally vindicated.

I must disagree with this statement, though:

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!

The latter would be guilty of inconsistency born of understandable revulsion; they would be mistaken. Peron is guilty of far, far worse.

Linz

Post 61

Thursday, July 14, 2005 - 1:44pm

Just to set the record straight, I don't want anyone to be deluded into thinking that I approve of Jim Peron's decisions and actions. The fact that he chose to live in a country with a Chief Censor on the government payroll is enough to prove to me that he is not a man of sound judgement. But New Zealanders ought to care about the precedents that are being set in his case. If the Locke Foundation were serious about their purported politics, they would hold a press conference to demand that Jim Peron be allowed access to his documents, and a chance to defend himself in court.

Am I the only one here to have read Peikoff's "Ominous Parallels?" The Nazis inaugurated their concentration camps by rounding up Communists. The Communists were truly vile, worse than the Nazis, already the murderers of untold millions of innocent victims. And if you objected to concentration camps, you would be smeared as a sympathizer with Communists, and no honest man wanted that. But once the concentration camps were built, and the Nazis still won the next election, the guest list began to grow. That's as clear a practical demonstration as any of Rand's "least attractive practitioner" principle.

Now, I am as afraid as any of you of the risk of being labeled a sympathizer with pedophiles. But if I lived in New Zealand, I would be even more afraid of what is in store if enough good people chose not to run that risk.

So, "Locke Foundation:" let us see what you do next.

Post 62

Thursday, July 14, 2005 - 1:45pm

RCR quotes Riggenbach: "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."

Firstly, no one has any obligation to actively defend the rights of anyone, particularly those whose actions are morally repugnant. If you want to defend the right to free expression of paedophilia, go ahead. The whole thing churns my stomach so I'm sorry I won't be joining you.

But in any case, as Cresswell clearly pointed out in post 46, "the issue is not one of 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."

I totally agree with PC on this point, only peaceful individuals should be allowed to immigrate (and by corollary, I think non-peaceful individuals, i.e. Islamic jihadists, should be kicked the f*** out of the country).

Adam writes in post 31 that "Peter Cresswell writes approvingly of the exercise of arbitrary bureaucratic force". This is not correct. He has argued that the force exercised was not arbitrary since it was backed up by evidence.

I suspect however that by "arbitrary" you mean that the immigration authorities did not follow due process. On that, you may have a point (while I don't know the full details, I find it disturbing that Winston Peters, acting under Parliamentary privelege, may have influenced events - he should have simply passed the details on to the immigration authorities privately, and publicly made his point without naming names). But from my reading, PC has not commented on the process for the decision, he has only commented on the evidence for the decision.

The only issue for me is whether due process has been followed. In principle, everyone is due a fair trial, but at the same time there is a practical limit on how much immigration authorities should be practically required to do. Nevertheless, there should be minimum procedural standards that should be followed.

(Edited by Tim Sturm on 7/14, 2:00pm)

(Edited by Tim Sturm on 7/14, 2:02pm)

Post 63

Thursday, July 14, 2005 - 2:27pm

Adam,

Finally we touch common ground. Why not a call for due process? That is reasonable.

Madeleine Flannagan, Communications Director for Locke Foundation, who posted in this thread (and who answered my questions) actually stated this idea in Post 19:

I also think he can rake his goat curd to fetta with the denial of a right to appeal in NZ where he can access his own San Francisco records, etc. And the time frame factor being so short.

In some ways I would prefer it if he could come back to NZ, have 2 months to prepare his response and then get booted out, it would take a lot of that potential moral high ground away and arguably its fair from a justice point of view.

Then in Post 36 (to my own question No. 3):

3. I am also disturbed by the implication that all of Peron's stuff is in New Zealand and he can't go get it. Is that true?

Yes, this is true. I too am disturbed by this.

From these statements, I don't see anything in her position adverse to your suggestion - at least in releasing a statement from the Locke Foundation to the press calling for due process.

One good thing about a court trial is that hard evidence has to be produced from many sources. Once it is, then a really rational analysis and judgment can be made.

If Jim Peron can win his day in court (and I sincerely hope that he will) and such evidence as he may present does not contradict the evidence I have seen so far, my personal stance in keeping my distance from this man will continue.

Michael

Post 64

Thursday, July 14, 2005 - 2:36pm

Tim,

For the state to impose force on the basis of "evidence" that was never tested in open court is arbitrary.

Post 65

Thursday, July 14, 2005 - 2:44pm

Michael,

If that were the case, I would not invite him into a home in which young boys were present, or hire him as a teacher in school, or as a scoutmaster or a youth counselor. But I would not necessarily boycott his writings - he has written quite a bit of useful work.

Post 66

Thursday, July 14, 2005 - 3:07pm

Adam, I note that you've neither answered my questions in post 46, nor carried out your intentions expressed in post 45 when you said, "I see no point in continuing this thread."

Neither do I if you continue to avoid questions, evidence and relevant points and instead post inanities like this: "Just to set the record straight, I don't want anyone to be deluded into thinking that I approve of Jim Peron's decisions and actions. The fact that he chose to live in a country with a Chief Censor on the government payroll is enough to prove to me that he is not a man of sound judgement."

I'm pleased that you 'disapprove' of Peron's decisions and actions, however belated and carefully worded that disapproval. But your continuing insistence on driving this discussion towards your obsession with the Chief Censor, and your refusal to address questions, or the point that this man advocated for real crime is disturbing -- equivocations about abortion, Nazi concentration camps, the existence of travel visas and the like not withstanding.

Peron is not a "least attractive practitioner" of something about which there is legitimate debate. As long as you continue to imply otherwise without addressing the points that show your error, then you are guilty of laying out a smokescreen of protection for such activities, and perhaps also of a little word that starts with 'e.'

I'll repeat for those that have continued to miss the point: libertarians say that peaceful people should be able to pass borders freely. Advocating for crimes and offering support, succour, organising and fundraising for those that commit such crimes is not, in any meaningful sense of the word, peaceful.

Post 67

Thursday, July 14, 2005 - 3:36pm

Linz wrote, "Bill, you champion—nice to see you posting here. You paid a terrible price at Peron's vindictive hands for speaking the truth, till you were finally vindicated.

Thanks, Linz! It's nice to see some acknowledgement of that. It's more than I've seen from some quarters. You continue,

"I must disagree with this statement, though:

'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!'

"The latter would be guilty of inconsistency born of understandable revulsion; they would be mistaken. Peron is guilty of far, far worse."

If you're referring to his vicious lies, his character assassination and his material support of NAMBLA, then I suppose you're right. But what I'm seeing from the New Zealand government is worse than I had imagined. All it does is give Peron a platform on which to plead his own victimization, which is the last thing you'd want to do.

- Bill

Post 68

Thursday, July 14, 2005 - 3:49pm

"Tim, For the state to impose force on the basis of "evidence" that was never tested in open court is arbitrary."

Quite. So I characterised your argument perfectly then.

It seems that you and PC are discussing different things. Why don't you give your opinion the principles that PC has put forward - that only peaceful people should be allowed past the border, and that supporting paedophilia qualifies as non- peaceful.

And PC, what is your opinion on whether due process has been followed in this case?

Post 69

Thursday, July 14, 2005 - 3:59pm

Linz is about the last guy on Earth who who underhandedly and sneakily screw someone over. He has the fortitude and honesty to let people know when he doesn't care for them, a trait which ought to be much more common. Are the Linz-bashers SO short an material that they have to post garbage like this?

Post 70

Thursday, July 14, 2005 - 4:13pm

Scott DeSalvo writes:

"Linz is about the last guy on Earth who who underhandedly and sneakily screw [sic] someone over. He has the fortitude and honesty to let people know when he doesn't care for them, a trait which ought to be much more common. Are the Linz-bashers SO short an [sic] material that they have to post garbage like this?"

I started this thread and have read all 69 messages on it (up to this one) and have seen nothing I would characterize as "Linz-bashing." Who exactly is guilty of such bashing? Name names or shut up.

JR

Post 71

Thursday, July 14, 2005 - 7:00pm

Peter,

I continued my participation in this thread because some people I respect have joined the debate.

I regard advocates of pederasty just as Ayn Rand would have, in the same light as advocates of Communism. I cited Peikoff's "Ominous Parallels," written under Ayn Rand's intellectual supervision, to show that - in a context in which larger principles were at stake - Rand considered principled action more important than avoiding the appearance of sympathizing with Communists.

I doubt if, under more normal conditions, the above explanation would have been necessary. So I have no doubt that your conceptual faculty was turned off when you read that post, and it probably still is, and that you will find a way to twist this post too, to fit the pre-conceptual state you have allowed your mind to fall into. I am not debating with you. But when necessary, I shall continue to correct the falsehoods that may result from your self-imposed mental disability.

I look forward to a time when you will allow your mental faculties to return, and we can engage in a reasonable discussion of whatever issues remain.

Post 72

Thursday, July 14, 2005 - 7:48pm

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.

When we first released our report and Unbound, Peron was in New Zealand living at his house presumably with full access to his archives.

He refused to speak to media but you can trawl through the blogs he and his inner circle posted on, most notably www.kiwiblog.co.nz you can ask someone who subscribes to the Intitute for Liberal Values email list to send you the explanations he sent out at that point or you could go to Peron's anonymous blog and see his explanations of all of this http://lookinginnz.blogspot.com/2005/07/what-hell-is-going-on.html where he has disabled the ability to post responses after deleting the responses that asked questions of the material issues he is charged with.

See for yourself if his defence thus far proves that most of the allegations are false.

I remain ambivalent about immigration laws, I don't know what I think about his being deported but I cannot change the laws of my country. I am glad that he will no longer be in my country because I would rather he was far far away, but I am not convinced that it is just for him to be deported. I tend to think Bill Dwyer has a point there, ostracism appears more just as the crime I see him having committed is that of failure of integrity, dishonesty and betrayal of those who trusted him and of the cause that he supposedly supported.

I am strongly leaning towards a decision to write to immigration and ask for him to be allowed back to NZ to appeal from his own records and with a decent time frame to prepare his appeal. If my honest concern is the truth coming out then I should fear nothing from this. I have not yet decided on this but it is something I will discuss with my fellow Locke Foundation colleagues, I know Matthew feels as uncomfortable with the due process issues as I do and I cannot imagine the others on the board not feeling the same way.

Madeleine

Post 73

Thursday, July 14, 2005 - 9:41pm

Sorry everyone, I've been offline for most of the day, and now I'm off for the weekend to campaign in Whangarei on behalf of property rights.

But I see that Adam's not answering my questions anyway. He says: "I am not debating with you." There you are. "But when necessary, I shall continue to correct the falsehoods that may result from your self-imposed mental disability."

So at least he's being polite about it.

I'll consider the due process points over the weekend.

Post 74

Friday, July 15, 2005 - 1:24am

I would be interested in hearing what people make of this, particularly the emphasised part (emphasis mine).

Madeleine

------ Forwarded Message
From: Jim Peron <peron@orcon.net.nz>
Reply-To: A moderated discussion list run by the Institute for Liberal
Values of New Zealand <ilv_discuss@liberalvalues.org.nz>
Date: Sat, 9 Jul 2005 06:02:25 +1200
To: <ILV_Discuss@liberalvalues.org.nz>
Subject: [ILV] the support has been fantastic

The support from new and old friends has been very good and much
appreciated. I was actually surprised to realize how long I have known
some of the people who contacted me. Support from people who have known
me a long time is important. One friend I have known for 28 years.
Another 21 years, several are 25 years in duration. These are people
who have been in constant contact with me for decades and with whom
I've discussed everything under the sun. And they are shocked to be
told what has been said, utterly shocked. I was reluctant to tell more
people the shit that has been spread simply because it so disturbing
and unpleasant. But I figured that the viciousness of what was done
really made one point clear: I have nothing else to lose.

It is never a good idea to put your enemy in a position where he has
nothing left to lose. I say that because when he reaches that stage all
the responses he has dismissed before as "too costly", in what ever way
one measures it suddenly, become options. Things I could have said or
done which would have escalated the situation and were thus not done
can no longer make it worse for me.

I'm not threatening violence as that is not necessary nor would I
condone it though I think a good case of self defense from a
libertarian perspective can be made here. One prominent libertarian,
who won't be named, has recommended full out legal attacks on the basis
that when people do what was done here, and the state called in then
they have initiated force and using state force in response is
appropriate.

Now when I started looking at the names of the people who responded and
how long we've been friends I would hate to think of the hundreds and
hundreds of hours of conversations that were held with each one. These
are people who know me very, very well. What is odd is the people
making the accusers hardly know me at all. Winston saw me once and said
one sentence or two to me at most. And I'm sure he didn't remember. The
fundie nutters have never met me! Nor have they ever spoken to me! But
they put themselves forth as experts and great judges of character ---
which is why they were such close friends with Graham Capill and
allowed him around their children!!!! And the one who started it all is
somebody I have spoken to in person may half a dozen times. The first
night in NZ he went into a wine induced rage and screamed and insulted
the whole time so I stayed as far away as possible from that point on
keeping interaction to a minimum. But people who never meet me, or said
a few words to me, or who maybe spent a few hours in total with me are
now experts and think they know more than people with whom I shared
apartments or houses, and have known for up to three decades.

If there are any others who would like to do something easy to help
please email me and I'll fill you in.

Jim

_______________________________________________
ILV_Discuss mailing list
ILV_Discuss@liberalvalues.org.nz
http://www.liberalvalues.org.nz/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ilv_discuss
Powered by http://www.xeque.com

------ End of Forwarded Message

Post 75

Friday, July 15, 2005 - 1:37am

Adam wrote to Peter:

"But when necessary, I shall continue to correct the falsehoods that may result from your self-imposed mental disability."

That's reminiscent of the slimy, supercilious condescension of the entity whose creepiness this thread is all about. Adam, I'll take a Cresswell, whose indignant decency leads him into understandable error occasionally, against a militant monstrosity like Peron & its apologists who rely on that decency to permit their own indecency to prosper, any day of the millennium. Cresswell is a magnificent human being, a NEM. Your description of him as having a "self-imposed mental disability" is more than just unworthy of you ...

Linz

Post 76

Friday, July 15, 2005 - 2:00am

Madeleine revealed Peron saying:

And the one who started it all is somebody I have spoken to in person may half a dozen times. The first night in NZ he went into a wine induced rage and screamed and insulted the whole time so I stayed as far away as possible from that point on keeping interaction to a minimum.

I assume that's me, since he's always saying I'm "the one who started it all." In which case it's hysterically funny. This was the day he arrived in NZ, his air fare having been paid largely by donations from members of my (as it was then) libertyloop. I sent Cresswell to pick him up from the airport in my lovely classic Rover. Cresswell reported that he didn't stop whining from the moment he got into the car. Then we had a meal in a nearby restaurant. I paid for Peron's & Shaun's meal as my welcome-to-NZ gift to them. Then I invited them back to my apartment, along with Cresswell & other guests. Discussion got a little bit heated at times, to be sure, but there was no "wine-induced rage." The main heat that night was not between me & Peron but Cresswell & Peron—it was like hate at first sight, with Cresswell being in the right. That was when we realised we had a prize jerk on our hands. "A snivelling, ungrateful cunt," in Bates' words. But we had no idea at that point that he was a promoter of "man-boy love."

I'm a little concerned about the threatening undertones of other parts of what Madeleine has posted here. I think, M, you should show this to the cops.

Linz

Post 77

Friday, July 15, 2005 - 2:44am

On a moral level we have the liberty to judge - and forgetting all untried accusations, we can stick to Perons own words to judge him a sick and perverted bastard. Though in general i think it dangerous to publically accuse anyone of pedophilia based on rumors. It is impossible to be innocent until proven guilty - you are guilty the moment you are accused, and even guilty when proven innocent. But that is in general, Peron has proven himself guilty of breaking the moral codes, at least mine, and i think those of the great majority of people.

On a legal level we don't have the liberty to judge, but if advocating that the age of consent lowered to 10, however disgusting, was to be made illegal, all proposed changes to law was to be illegal. If making exceptions for cases like that of Peron, then Advocating a raise in speed limits on high-ways, the killing of muslims including their children (not to start a debate on that), anything approving sales of tobacco but to mention a few, could be done by outlaws only.

Claiming high profile members of society innocent because their lives are under heavy scrutiny is as silly as claiming anyone guilty based on rumors - we have many examples of high profile members of society being involved in crimes also crimes of pedophilia. I know of several such cases where it has taken the better part of 20 years to nail them.

One could wish for a less rigid legal system where judges to a larger extend could use their judgement - faculty of reason - aided by the law, and to a lesser degree limited by it, to sentence criminals. Rulings that could be tried at higher courts and challenged by a fourth power of ombudsmen. Releasing criminals on technicalities is sad, especially as we know it doesn't prevent innocent people from going to jail.

Age of consent should be allowed challenged only by those below the age of consent then at least we would reach the limit for capability of reasoned consent.

But whatever the difficulties in knowing what goes on in peoples bedrooms, crimes against children that for many reasons can't tell anyone about the crimes, i don't think it should pose as a difficulty to immigration. Any sovereign nation has the liberty to refuse guests on any ground. I think it fair for immigrations to say no to suspected war criminals, suspected terrorists, suspected pedophiles... suspect people, or whoever else for whatever reason. 'sorry sir, we have used this years quota for Hells Angels supporters', 'sorry ma'am, unemployment is too high in your chosen profession'. 'sorry, we object to objectivists'.

Post 78

Friday, July 15, 2005 - 5:09am

Luke,-

Since you claim to know Jim Peron so well, I only need you to answer one question, Rick:
Did Jim Peron openly advocate sexual relations between adults and children?
If no, then please explain how he managed to get himself into this position of having so many fingers pointing at him saying that he did. Am I really supposed to believe a conspiracy theory?

My apartment was half-way between Jim's bookstore and PC's house and both were ports of call now and again in the course of Libz activism. I know neither of the two better than the other nor am I more the friend of one over the other. In my experience neither of them eat green eggs and ham, eat their cereal with a fork, have framed Roger Rabbit nor openly advocate sexual relations between adults and children.

Kelly,-
I see you standing up for a friend and that is a value I hold. I admire that. We have common ground here, but unfortunately little else.

Well there's a newsflash for me.
Peron, Perigo, Cresswell and Andrew Bates too for that matter are unique in having made me angrier than a cut snake at one time or another over the last few years and yet I can never see a future where I would choose to dispense with any of them. But I wouldn't count myself as a friend to any of them, and if I did I would be acting to help Peron right now rather than yapping passively.

In this case, "No damn homage. No damn demigod."
Strikeout!

Here again I have noticed that you and I don't interpret the same world in the same way.

Robert Winefield?
Rick Giles wrote "especially don't like the way your Winefield-types keep doing the same by way of paying homage to the demigods of power"
As for the rest, I am used to being accused of begin a Perigo-lackey, it is a tired concept and no longer has any sting.

You've changed man. Seems like only yesterday you wanted to settle the flag burning debate with a fist fight. Has hell frozen over or what? Whoever stopped the sting by finally taking the lid off this jar of maturity....I loosened the lid for them!
What this debate needs is some over-the-top berserker on your side of the field to score own goals and bring the team into disrepute. Will I never say 'Whingefield' again?

Ms Kat,-
Pedophilia is NOT a sexual fetish and child pornography is NOT a matter of free expression

You're twice wrong. Even the extremes of sadism and depravity that can be found in man are at liberty if man is at liberty- and so it must be. Initiating force to serve this depravity though, ah, that is another matter. But to uphold the Objectivist principles of sexual freedom and free expression you need to separate liberty from your rising bile- because these are two things, not one. You need to be able to say the Voltare line, without circumstantial exception.

Cresswell writes:
Barring entry to those that advocate genuine crimes is a legitimate function of government. I would expect you to know that too.

I find it striking that PC keeps giving life to this subject, that perhaps he protests too much? No idea why. Little or no idea either as to why the Otago Friends of Jesus have pursued this either! I'm guessing that the word "odium" doesn't generate enough containment to hold the hate, you need words strong enough to support suspension bridges, words like "pedophile". Sometimes I get into fights too but I've never seen fit to initiate an international research project inquiring into my adversary's sexual allegiances. Don't cross the Scarfies! They play for keeps.

This Cresswell policy reminds me of a movie called Minority Report where the premise had Tom Cruise incarcerating 'criminals' for their 'future crimes'. This is in contrast to the huge costs in time and money our own non-fictional constabulary invests in watching and waiting to catch criminals in the act.

What other crimes might one advocate in order to be guilty under the Cresswellian "Pre-Crime" policy? If being an advocate of pedophilia is wrong, how much worse is socialism advocacy? Deport also all Comunists, for they advocate great evil also. Deport Rousseau, Marx, Socrates, Aristotle, Locke and all the other philosophers who are not like us because theirs is the fountianhead of all evil and this will stop them (although each and all of those men were sentenced to exile, and how'd that work out for the enemies of their ideas?).

The people I'm speaking to know where this is going, I needn't develope the argument more, you know I can. If you order your state to start deporting people for the content of their advocacy you'll very soon have a great dearth of population. The last New Zealander will have to deport himself.

Well that's a hypothetical debate that doesn't pertain to anybody I know. But if I'm wrong then at least there's the consolation of having a Cresswellian Commisar without sin. He without sin can cast the first stone for me which I, being an imperfect Objectivist at best, cannot do- could you?

Post 79

Friday, July 15, 2005 - 8:29am