Wednesday, 20 April 2005

Lessons from Peron, 1: How to give an answer without giving an answer

Jim Peron writes a whole article here without mentioning either himself or the evidence against him, as a prelude no doubt to showing that the world and his brother has been conspiring against him.

There are no easy answers, he argues. Oh purleeese. Maybe he just had all those pictures of naked boys and published all those stories about seducing them because he was doing research?


  1. Don't waste your time reading either of these Peron essays folks. PC warned me, but I had to find out for myself, didn't I. What a waste of reading time. You will learn nothing - guaranteed.

  2. Then people can read it for themselves. So are you saying PC that Peron was arrested as was originally claimed? Or are you now not claiming that? Are you claiming he was deported from South Africa as originally claimed or are you now not claiming that? Hell, the accusations that were made shifted faster than Auckland's weather.

  3. As, of course, has Peron's position - he told *me* he'd never supported NAMBLA and that the magazine presented in Parliament didn't exist. So I went in to bat on his behalf - unaware I was being manipulated by him.

  4. I've never said that Peron was arrested, and his claims that people have done so are a red herring. That claim was raised by one person on one email list and very quickly withdrawn - the person who raised them admitted he was wrong as to who exactly in Peron's San Fran shop was arrested and jailed for sixteen years from molestation. You wouldn't even hear those claims any more if Peron was not raising them in order to say that 'the allegations have changed.'

    Call that 'Lessons from Peron, 2' if you like: Use a red herring to divert attention from what is actually being said.

    Am I claiming that he was once deported from SA? No, and I never have. AFIAK nobody has, but if they have it's simply another red herring.

    What I have said is only what there is evidence to support: that Peron was a supporter of NAMBLA; that he invited NAMBLA into his shop for meetings, which continued all the time he ran the shop; that his public views on the age of consent have not changed in the sixteen years since he left SF for SA, nor since he has come here; that he published a magazine celebrating Man-Boy sex, and possesses (or did possess until recently) erotic photographs of underage boys.

    And I've said he's lied about all this to the NZ public -- he's defended it all with half-truths (e.g., 'it was all twenty years ago!' - it wasn't, it was sixteen) and with flat-out lies ('I didn't write the story/publish the magazine/host the meetings voluntarily' etc.) -- but more importantly he's asked people here to support him who stand to lose heavily by association with his odiousness, and he's lied to them about who he is and what he's done.

    I was one of those who helped him. I helped collate the Immigration application for him; it was I who rang the Immigration Servive to check out the policy on employees of non-profit organisations; I picked him up from airports and promoted speaking tours and spoke on platforms with him ... and he lied to me and he's lied to every other honest person in this country who's ever helped him. And about those lies he has no compunction.

    But now that his lies and half-truths and patterns of deceit are becoming more and more plain, quite why anyone would choose to help him now is totally beyond me.

  5. I've just deleted two more slithering posts from anonymites.

  6. Do you have any proof?

  7. I saw the posts earlier. Is it that they implicated Libz in the theft of private property and tresspass that caused you to delete them? Did you know if these drawings were stolen? Do you know who stole them? Those were the type of questions that the two posts raised. Why not just answer the questions instead of deleting them? Or would that implicate people in criminal acts?

  8. Of course PC should not answer those questions. He’s already implied or said too much from a legal point of view.

    One should never say they viewed stolen property and knew from where it was taken. That implies a role, either premeditated or after the fact. My advice would have been to shut up and don’t do anything to rile the issue. While the legal penalties would probably be light the publicity wouldn’t be. The media would love to beat up on the Libz especially if they could tie in theft with their support for property rights. That is precisely the type of hook the media would look for. Better get to bed as it’s far later than I thought.

  9. probablygetdeletedtoo21 Apr 2005, 06:44:00

    Did these questions make accusations or just ask questions? Only Libz are allowed to make accusations here that's the rules I suppose.

  10. FWIW, here's the Hansard record of the tabling of the offending (and offensive) photographs:
    Tabling of Documents

    Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First): I seek leave to table the following documents. One is an article from the Sunday Star-Times, dated 3 April 2005, in which Jim Peron states that he is being crucified over the interpretation of opinions that he expressed 20 years ago and no longer holds.

    Document, by leave, laid on the Table of the House.

    Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First): I seek leave to table two articles written by Jim Peron entitled “The Claptrap Over Child Porn”, parts 1 and 2, written in May 2003.

    Documents, by leave, laid on the Table of the House.

    Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First): I seek leave to table a series of pictures of naked boys retrieved from Jim Peron’s Auckland bookstore, Aristotle’s Books, just 3 weeks ago.

    Document, by leave, laid on the Table of the House.


1. Commenters are welcome and invited.
2. All comments are moderated. Off-topic grandstanding, spam, and gibberish will be ignored. Tu quoque will be moderated.
3. Read the post before you comment. Challenge facts, but don't simply ignore them.
4. Use a name. If it's important enough to say, it's important enough to put a name to.
5. Above all: Act with honour. Say what you mean, and mean what you say.