Rumors About Linz

Matthew,

You are right that there is room for uncertainty about the reach of conspiracy laws. But there are other principles at stake. One of them is that the citizen or subject must be able to tell, in advance of any action, whether the action is legal or not. That is why ex-post-facto laws are unconstitutional. It is also why, as long as a system of objective law protects individual rights in the place where a man acts, the legal judgement of that action must be justified by the law that existed there and not somewhere else.

Of course it may be legitimate for New Zealand to ask prospective immigrants, "did you ever commit an act which would be a felony if it were done in New Zealand?" But if, as in this case, the question was never asked, or the man did answer honestly to the best of his knowledge, and there is no evidence that he presents an actual danger to anyone, then for the state to exile him from his home and separate him from his partner of 10 years is outside the civilized limits of government conduct.

(Edited by Adam Reed
on 7/15, 7:37pm)

Post 101

Friday, July 15, 2005 - 7:41pm

Adam,

Just a minor point.

Possibly, one reason to deny him access to his records is to keep him silent until the public gets the impression that he is guilty.

If that is possibly one reason (which I seriously doubt - there go your insinuations again), I could see a reason for it. There was a tremendous amount of publicity advocating that Peron was a poor victim subject to a backstage smear campaign spearheaded by Linz. Such publicity existed because Peron actively sought out many media outlets and constantly lied through his teeth. That already has been proven.

To say that he needs to present his case in court is true. But he has already presented his case in public repeatedly for quite a while. As it is a group of proven lies, his public statements are of no use at all. That is why sympathizers keep saying he has to present his case - they cannot quote him from before.

So, as is clamored for (with myself also aboard), what he now needs to do is present his real case in court (or the real, actually true, not counterfactual, no fibbing this time case), which of course will contradict - at major points - the volumes he said in public before, even if it attempts to paint him as one who did not aid pedophiles.

Michael

Post 102

Friday, July 15, 2005 - 8:10pm

Michael,

As you yourself stated on another thread, human memory is fallible, and errors about the past do not imply deliberate deception. When Valiant uses the old, and in my opinion dishonest, prosecutorial trick of inferring a deliberate lie from the normal inaccuracies of memory, you identify his tricks correctly. But then you yourself seem to proclaim the same kind of inference as valid argument! Just think how I could exploit this if I had the misfortune of being a lawyer....

Post 103

Friday, July 15, 2005 - 8:59pm

Adam,

There's a limit to the fallibility of human memory for a sane person. Barbara may have erred on some details, but she did not say that she had no idea who Ayn Rand really was. How would that be for a memory slip?

Come on.

The man published Unbound. He wrote an article for it. The police raided his place over involvement with pedophilia and screwed that up big time. His employee was arrested and convicted for pedophilia. NAMBLA met in his store for years. Now you want me to believe and even postulate that he forgot about his own publication and place of work with all that tension and notoriety? That's one hell of a memory slip, don't you think?

Let him tell it to the courts and see what they think. I ain't buying it.

Also, saying that NABLA possibly manipulated him because of his "subnormal social cognition" is a real thin straw to grasp at. (To tell the truth, it caused me to explode in a belly-laugh - not a sarcastic one, a real one. That was funny as all get out.)

Adam, let's be clear about something. I am a recovered drug addict and alcoholic for some years now. We have a saying amongst our kind. Never try to shit a shitter.

Peron's house of cards is falling. It is falling big time. There's no longer anyway out for him to keep up appearances. I don't know what the full truth is about him (to tell the truth, this issues touches several people I care deeply about because I really couldn't care less about Peron as a person - I don't know him), but I do know some whoppers I have seen Peron come out with in public. The man contradicts himself. For how long?

I see him piling lies on top of lies and all that is going to do is make things worse for him. I've been there (in terms of my own brand of problems). Done that. It doesn't work after the house of cards starts falling.

The only thing that will help Peron at this point is the truth - coming from him. And that will be as damage control only. There's no way to pretend he was never involved with pedophilia anymore. All these rationalizations, like the ones you mentioned, are just going to add fuel to the fire, simply because they don't hold water. There is documented evidence and public records to the contrary.

From everything I have read of this man, he will still stubbornly go out and try to prove the unprovable. But then, to the delight of his enemies, we both know where that will lead, don't we?

Also, let me state my strongest contempt possible for those statements on this thread promoting the legalization of sex between adults and 14 year old kids. The North Carolina law sounds extremely reasonable to me. I would makes some changes in the law as Luke reported it, but not in the principle - kids will not be prosecuted for fooling around with kids when it happens - adults will be prosecuted for fooling around with kids. Good for North Carolina.

You and I agree on due process for Peron. We do not agree on the validity of attempting to rewrite history to expunge what is unpleasant.

Michael

Post 104

Friday, July 15, 2005 - 10:01pm

Michael,

Your interpretation might be correct, or it might not. I can think of half a dozen scenarios to explain the data, some of them plausibly innocent. It's a scientist's habit never to stop at only one way of explaining a partial set of data. I could type some of those alternative explanations in in, but what would be the point? I don't have the full data set, and neither do you. And if those New Zealanders who care about such things don't get busy soon, neither will anyone.

You've already let your decency get manipulated enough to endorse, earlier in this thread, non-objective tax laws that governments can use to criminalize everything and anyone. You have backtracked on that, but your apparent compulsion to try this man, at least in your mind, without giving him a fair chance at defending himself is something that you ought to be concerned about. If you were in politics, it would be something for all principled lovers of liberty to be concerned about. Be glad that you aren't, and until the rest of the evidence is in just give it a break.

Post 105

Friday, July 15, 2005 - 10:47pm

Adam,

You can be downright insulting without any reason, you know that?

I don't think I will give this a break, not when you keep spouting off your endless twaddle insinuating all kinds of silly things (me wanting to criminalize everything and anyone, then backtracking indeed - for fucking Christ's sake, I was talking about Al Capone and using what was at hand to nail him, since he bought the damn law back then through bribes).

You are simply spreading a false illusion that no evidence exists against Peron.

It does.

You don't have to read it, but it exists.

Ignore it. [BLANK OUT.] You can rewrite history at will, but I will not buy it.

Thank God you are not looking after the welfare of my family, that's for sure. I would like to return your politics comment. Any real principled lover of liberty would be very disturbed if you were in a political position by your posturing as a lover of liberty in order to protect guilty scum like Al Capone. I think it is wonderful you are not in that field, and I certainly rest easier. You would be a disaster on stilts.

In the name of a "greater principle," citing Communists and Peikoff and Ayn Rand and whatnot, you promote a gross ignorance of facts and context that is simply nothing more than irresponsibility.

I am starting to suspect that your "greater principle" is not your real agenda.

Michael

Post 106

Friday, July 15, 2005 - 10:55pm

I wrote, "...of all the defamations that he is guilty of, perhaps the worst is the defamation of libertarianism - associating it with the idea that children have the same rights as adults and the capacity to make the same decisions as adults. Peron is not alone in this view, by the way. It is more common among libertarians than you might think."

As evidence that this view is common among libertarians, I should have noted the following position statement from the Libertarian Party Platform (of 1984): "We oppose all legally created or sanctioned discrimination against (or in favor of) children, just as we oppose government discrimination directed at any other artificially defined subcategory of human beings."

So what do the libertarians who wrote that statement have in mind? Evidently the following:  "If a seven-year-old nods assent when asked whether he wants to engage in sex with an adult, that is his 'right." If he wishes to drink liquor, one has a 'right' to give it to him. If he wants to leave home and live with some strangers he has just met, he has a perfect 'right' to do so. If he decides he wants to use heroin, buy a gun, drive a car, or fly a plane, neither he nor anyone willing to accommodate him should be stopped by law." (P. Schwartz, "Libertarianism: The Perversion of Liberty," in The Voice of Reason: Essays in Objectivist Thought, p. 324) Accordingly, there should be no discrimination between children and adults.

RCR reponds, "After checking in on my last post, I feel obligated to enter a brief response to this statement by Bill Dwyer, since it is at the very heart of this "discussion", (which, depressingly, has happened already some time ago, in great length on A2 and SOLO)...

"As was pointed out to Bill before (on A2) using the word 'children' in this context is next-to-meaningless, without proper qualifications."

I meant it in the sense of all non-adults.

"It is most appropriate to ask (in relation to Bill's assertion), what is a child, and at what age is it reasonable to believe that the individual has a reasonable amount of control over his or her self-faculties, in order to make a reasonable judgement call with regard to sexual relationships?    The history of 'age of consent' laws is varied and quite interesting, and it is something that really ought to be considered when discussing such topics.   What is reasonable? 10? 12? 14? 16? 18? 20? Or maybe 11? 13? 15? 17? 19?

"I happen to believe that most 14 years olds, for example, are more than qualified--from a legal perspective--to make rational decisions about sexual relationships (as well as huge variety of other things and circumstances) and ought to, in general, be afforded the same rights and considerations as any 18 year old. And further, I believe that the "age of consent" ought to be lowered to around this age (in order to be a rational law)."

In view of the latest research, there may be reason to question this. The frontal lobe of the human brain does not fully mature until young adulthood.   UCLA researchers compared MRI scans of young adults, 23-30, with those of teens, 12-16. They looked for signs of myelin, which would imply more mature, efficient connections, within gray matter. Areas of the frontal lobe showed the largest differences between young adults and teens. The increased myelination in the adult frontal cortex relates to the maturation of cognitive processing and other "executive" functions.

Another series of MRI studies has shown that teens process emotions differently than adults. Using functional MRI, a team at Harvard�s McLean Hospital scanned subjects� brain activity while they identified emotions on pictures of faces displayed on a computer screen. Young teens, who characteristically perform poorly on the task, activated the amygdala, a brain center that mediates fear and other "gut" reactions, more than the frontal lobe. As teens grow older, their brain activity during this task tends to shift to the frontal lobe, leading to more reasoned perceptions and improved performance.

"I know many of my peers (male and female) who engaged in sexual relationships at this age [14], (and earlier) and are certainly none-the-worse for the experiences. This is not to say that there weren't any 'difficulties', but when in life aren't there?"

I don't think it's any coincidence that the number of out-of-wedlock births and single-parent households has increased significantly in the last 40 years. Some will attribute this to changes in the welfare laws, but I think a good case could be made that the trend is also due to a change in cultural norms in which teenagers are increasingly viewed as mature enough to engage in sexual relations. Of course, a sexual encounter between two teenagers is not the end of the world.

A more serious problem is predatory sex between an adult and a young teen or pre-teen. Sexual relationships can involve serious emotional attachments and should not be treated lightly. Young teenagers do not have the mental or emotional maturity to handle sexual relationships, especially ones involving an adult, in which there is the additional problem of manipulation and exploitation. These children are still growing and maturing and should not be regarded as having the same rights (and responsibilities) as adults.

"This entire 'discussion' (if it is too be more than a smear campaign) is really an age-of-consent debate, which in all likelihood can not really be objectively settled (past a certain, foggy point), since all human beings ARE INDIVIDUALS whose rational, emotional, and sexual faculties develop at wildly different rates."

That doesn't mean that there are no general principles which should govern what teenagers should be allowed to do. Yes, people are individuals, but that should not obliterate the obvious mental and physical distinctions between children and adults - between fully mature human beings and those who have yet to reach maturity.

"In my humble opinion, throwing about loaded terms like 'children', in this context, without proper age qualifications, quickly reduces a valid discussion into emotive nonsense."

I don't think it's emotive nonsense to recognize that children and adults have different capacities for self-control and rational decision making and that these differences should be taken into account in deciding what rights and responsibilities are appropriate.

- Bill

Post 107

Friday, July 15, 2005 - 11:26pm

[Apologies, I thought I had logged in but since posting this I see that it has come up as Matt - joys of sharing a computer - it was posted by Madeleine Flannagan and not Matt.]

errors about the past do not imply deliberate deception.

A few lapses in memory we would all forgive, however, it is hard to believe one could forget the period of time one had paedophiles meeting in one's store and one actively produced an at-least-8-times-per-year pro-paedophile publication over at least a three year period - that one wrote for as well!

Recently I have discovered that I spent some years associating with a paedophile. This period in my life of discovering I had an association with paedophilia is not something I expect to ever forget. Discovering someone I had respected was a paedophile is something that sticks in one's mind. Events like this are not forgettable.

My judgement is to wait until the man gets a chance to present his side of this story. From what I've heard, his abstract cognition is superior but his social cognition is subnormal, enough that he may have been manipulated into helping NAMBLA without fully understanding what they were doing.

I am happy to hear version 4 of his side of the story which has varied from "Now I have had a chance to read Unbound I must explain that I did not mean peadophiles when I wrote boylovers..." to "I wrote part of that article but it was private, not for publication and someone stole it from my computer and added the references to boylovers..." to "I once held views like that but I gave them up...." to "I never held such views, they invented all this, I am a victim of a mass conspiracy."

Even if he was manipulated by NAMBLA, the guy is so aggressive and flies into rages at people I cannot see that but lets grant your point for the sake of argument, does that years later justify defaming the reputations of several people, slandering them, standing back and allowing media to publish this slander and winning national public sympathy with a 3 week media circus where he was the lead story for the best part of it, the public believed him and turned on the likes of Linz, Winston Peters.

Peron, from his home in Auckland which is on the premises of his bookstore where his records are kept, wrote several articles some of which were published that he entitled the whole truth, where he repeated these lies and milked public sympathy. . There is also his incredibly lengthy faux interview which was sent accross and email list that I have just now bunged into a blank web page as posting it here would take up two whole pages I think.

When we entered the fray on this matter he wrote to people about us telling them all kinds of defamatory, false slanderous things about us leaving knives and human excrement in the letterboxes of gay people, that we knew about our former associate being a paedophile but helped to keep it secret and that then knowing that we let our kids be around him, of us having a history of attacking and abusing gays - that we hate gays, the we have harassed and hounded him for months with abuse, telling these people to have nothing to do with us. The facts and truth of the matter has been presented to him repeatedly about our character and there exists no evidence we ever did such things yet snonymous posts turn up on blogs and forums constantly repeating these lies - some appeared yesterday. Every time we can obtain an IP address it reverts to Germany.

I might be able to understand being manipulated 17 years ago, I could cut him some slack for being an easy target as a result of his horrid childhood of being physically and sexually abused by boylovers, but today, at age 50 he should know better than that. He has had time to better himself, to seek help and to learn to tell the truth - had he been honest about his past and said from the outset that 17 years ago he was manipulated by NAMBLA, got in with some bad people but has since reformed none of us would have held that against him, everyone makes mistakes, everyone has done stupid and unethical things in the past. But he did not do this, he ruined the reputations of Bill Dwyer, Linz and Winston Peters was going down in flames. Had we not found Unbound and written our report I hate to think where these men would be today. Whatever faults these men may have, they did not warrant being villified so publicly over things that Peron knew were true, over his poor social cognition.

My parents beat me, my father is an alacholic and still abuses me verbally. I have been raped. I have a criminal record. I have been promiscuous, I fell pregnant in my teens, I stole from people, I lied to people, I have been in 4 violent relationships - I don't care who knows this, I have nothing to hide, I paid the price, I lived the consequences and I will not pretend that it did not happen by slandering other people. I had a rotten, lousy, stinking childhood and then went from that to a huge mess with a baby to care for all before I was 20. But none of that excuses me acting unethically today as an adult, it excuses nothing.

If you have the worst start to life possible you have to get off your ass and sort out your crap and better yourself. You don't wander through life so at age 50 you are still going on about your crappy childhood and your weak social cognition. We are each given lives so that we can live them.

Madeleine

(Edited by Matthew Flannagan on 7/16, 11:10pm)

Post 108

Friday, July 15, 2005 - 11:31pm

You too, Michael. Mirror, mirror....

Post 109

Friday, July 15, 2005 - 11:52pm

If you do take the time to read Peron's whole truth article, make sure you read part 2. Know that the california registry of sex offenders state's Peron's friend and employee David Simons was convicted for molesting 3 children, all under age 12 and got 15 years - rather different from Peron's version in Whole Truth.

Then, go to the New Zealand parliamentary archives and read the allegations Winston Peters made against Peron in Parliament over two days. We went through the transcripts and from memory found well over 20 allegations about Peron. One allegation was the infamous "this paedophile" statement, the other was that his auckland bookstore was a porn shop, the rest of them, well over 20 were all about Peron's links to the paedophile movement.

I think in our report we substantiated some 21 of Winston Peters claims about Peron.

Post 110

Saturday, July 16, 2005 - 12:02am

Madeleine wrote of Peron:

But he did not do this, he ruined the reputations of Bill Dwyer, Linz and Winston Peters was going down in flames.

Correction�he tried to ruin the reputations of the above, but failed abjectly. He'll go on trying�anything to deflect attention from the real issue�& go on failing.

Linz

Post 111

Saturday, July 16, 2005 - 12:54am

Adam states:

You too, Michael. Mirror, mirror....

Whazzat? Too?

Me with another agenda too?

Nah. No agenda but the truth. Not even that seductive mirror. I gave my shit up years ago. It hurt, but I did it.

That mirror ain't no mirror, Adam. It's a door to a very bad place inside. I suggest caution about where it leads to...

Michael

(Edited by Michael Stuart Kelly on 7/16, 7:38am)

Post 112

Saturday, July 16, 2005 - 1:02am

Linz,

I just read that "Interview" and some of the stuff he says about you and about SOLO is so false it's delusional. I'm starting to feel that he might be bonkers enough to have done everything he's accused of. The only thing that still wouldn't fit is that the cops let him go. Identity theft? Multiple personalities? Post-traumatic stress? He absolutely does not appear to have the same personality as the author of the Jim Peron articles I have read.

If I were living in New Zealand, especially if I were an immigrant, I'd still be nervous as hell about the legal and political precedents being set by this case. But I don't live there and don't plan to. At least an American immigrant visa, like that of one of Yoon's relatives who is as crazy as Peron appears to be, can't be cancelled without all that nice American stuff like an open judicial hearing, legal representation and so on. Oooof. God Bless America.

Post 113

Saturday, July 16, 2005 - 1:39am

Adam wrote:

I'm starting to feel that he might be bonkers enough to have done everything he's accused of.

Well, the "bonkers" explanation has been posited to me by one of the people he duped right up until the time Unbound was unearthed. This guy thinks that Jim is a pathological liar. Whatever, Adam, I'm relieved you're starting to see through him. One of the frustrating things for me all along has been that to me it's so obvious that Peron is Nastiness Writ Large while others are oblivious to that, & to the danger he poses to the reputation of libertarianism. Quite apart from the promotion of paedophilia, he exudes precisely the kind of supercilious, snide, metaphysical malice that I despise with every fibre of my being ... yet so many have been�worse than blind to it�positively mesmerised by it, the four-star SOLOist you mention who's been feeding you the spin being very much a case in point. That just freaks me out.

I don't know if he has a clinical condition that he can't help. All I know is that he's vile.

When I chose to answer Mr. Riggenbach's original question, I was aware that this matter could then come to dominate the board. The last thing I wanted was for SOLOHQ to be polluted by Peron, but we pride ourselves on no topic being taboo, & it probably was necessary for me to confront those rumours. I sincerely hope we can move on to matters more becoming of SOLO quite soon, & I'm glad to note that other threads still seem quite active & lively.

And I hope that next time someone starts a thread called "Rumors About Linz" the rumours are more juicy. I was looking forward to learning something really interesting about myself.

Linz

Post 114

Saturday, July 16, 2005 - 7:14am

Well, Sarah, as goes maturity, I can think of at least one 36-year old who isn't much past 16 in alot of areas...

Post 115

Saturday, July 16, 2005 - 10:06am

And I hope that next time someone starts a thread called "Rumors About Linz" the rumours are more juicy. I was looking forward to learning something really interesting about myself.

Well, I could start a rumour about how Linz is an open, honest and passionate fighter for the cause of liberty.

However, on second thoughts, it might prove to be too controversial ;-)

(Edited by Marcus Bachler on 7/16, 10:07am)

Post 116

Saturday, July 16, 2005 - 7:10pm

This morning as I was leaving for church, late, I observed a strange car sitting in the middle of the road about half a house away from ours.

I went to the car where the children already were and got in and waited for Matt who was behind me chasing the cat who had run into the house as I left.

I saw matt reach the footpath and stare at the car in the middle of the road, he kept glancing at it as he crossed to the car and then called to me, that guy is taking photographs of me. The man in the car was snapping pics of Matt as he crossed the road through his car windscreen. We all turned and looked at the driver who saw he had been spotted and drove towards us, pausing as he passed our car to peer in at all of us before speeding away.

It all happened so fast that we failed to get the registration number of the car though we got a good look at the driver.

Since it is not everyday one is photographed by a seedy looking character as one leaves the house we have made a complaint to the police and alerted our neighbours to be vigilant. I can't help but wonder if the timing of this is coincidental though I am trying to not jump to conclusions.

Madeleine

Post 117

Saturday, July 16, 2005 - 10:40pm

Madeleine,

This is a disturbing little episode. At best it could be a juvenile prank or perhaps your image is about to be splashed across some sleazy publication. Nastier alternatives include that yours or your neighbour's house was being watched by repo men, private investigators or maybe even thieves.

But I doubt very much that Jim Peron has the where with all to do more than harass you via the internet. Were he able to command scary people to make things go bump in the night he wouldn't have had the troubles he had in South Africa that caused him to descend on NZ.

Lock your doors and windows at night, keep an eye on your kids, keep your cell-phone handy (remember that holding done the '1' key is the universal panic button for NZ cell-phones it puts you through to 111) and maybe keep a digital camera in your car. That way the next time they come snooping around you can get a picture of them.

And if you get really scared and feel like you need some "dispute-resolution" equipment for home or for your person give me or Duncan Bayne a private E-mail. There are still a few legal (not to mention lethal) options available in NZ. But in all seriousness I would be amazed if this isn't just some weird coincidence and totally unrelated to Perongate...

(Edited by Robert Winefield on 7/16, 10:59pm)

Post 118

Sunday, July 17, 2005 - 12:14am

Madeleine,

Thank you for posting that. You have taken a bold stand with your investigation and harassment comes with the territory. From your description, it sounds like you were meant to see that photographer so you would soil you pants. If that is the case, harassment is all it is. In Brazil, there is a saying that dogs who bark too much do not bite.

Your precautions seem to be in order and New Zealand seems to be more civilized than an undeveloped country. Thus I imagine that real foul play is a remote possibility (still, it would be a good idea to get others to help watch your back for awhile). My guess is that more harassment - if that is what it was - will occur.

Do not be intimidated. The world is defined for the better by those who seek the truth. I have seen from a distance what you have been able to uncover and I hold extreme high regard and admiration for you, your husband and the others at the Locke Foundation for your work in fighting fire with fire.

You are a beacon. Shine on.

Michael

Post 119

Sunday, July 17, 2005 - 2:30am