Friday, 15 April 2005

Where's Jim Peron II

Yesterday in Parliament Winston Peters tabled sexually explicit photographs "including photos and sketches of naked boys retrieved from Aristotle's [Jim Peron's bookshop] three weeks ago."

The tabling of these photographs occurred immediately before yesterday's Question Time in the House, and has gone unreported elsewhere.

The photographs and sketches, which openly depict young naked boys in semi-erotic poses and have been described as "disturbing," have been inspected by the Department of Internal Affairs who described them as "not objectionable under the Act." Under any standard of human decency however, objectionable is the least word one could use.


  1. But what is Peter's point here? To get at Hide? Most people don't know who Peron is, and care even less. Peters is morally bankrupt as far as I'm concerned.

  2. What is your source for this?

  3. Couldn't have been much to them if the government said they were "not objectionable under the Act" since the Act is pretty strict. Of course everyone knows PC's guru is behind this and has been peddling his smear for two years before he finally stooped to working with Peters and a couple of fundamentalists. Ah, the pathetic state of the Kiwi libertarians.

  4. Sounds suspicious to me especially since I remember reading that Internal Affairs went by the bookstore several weeks ago when these accusations were released and inspected the shop. They didn't find anything and gave the shop their approval at the time. I assume that an invoice from the bookstore was included proving the items, whatever they were, actually came from this bookstore. But even if that happened it would be an invoice for something which the law says in NOT objectionable. Peters may want Hide, something the Libz would love to see happen as well since they still think Kiwis will vote for them if ACT is out of the way. But PC you've hated Peron for years now. Or are you pretending to be "objective" as well.

  5. It almost sounds as if the Libz now don't think censorship laws are strict enough! PC's last comments say the publications (what were they precisely since he fails to enlighten anyone) were not objectionable but that is the least you can say about it implying they are in fact objectionable or perhaps should be censored. Often people abandon principle when they hate someone. The ex Libz leader did that all the time and he hated lots of people.

  6. Did anyone notice the wording. First the material was "retreived" not purchased? What the hell does that mean? Stolen?? If it was purchased why not say purchased. Also it doesn't say that the photos or sketches of "naked boys" were sexually explicit. This is like the following statement (fake): "Police raided the home of former journalist XX today in search of child pornography. Hundreds of videos were taken for inspection." Note that the first sentence describes the intent the second describes them taking films but doesn't mean that any of the films were child porn only taken to be looked at. All of them could be returned later as legal. The story is true but it gives an implication that is false. It's the use of emotive language meant to turn off rational thought. PC does the same thing when he says the photos and sketches "openly depict" young naked boys in semi erotic poses which has been described as "disturbing". Whoopdedoo! First how can anything be depicted except openly. Either it depicted what he says or didn't. Second "semi erotic" to whom? Was PC turned on by them? Was Winston turned on by them? Semi erotic is very vague a term. And then we have the anonymous person describing them as "disturbing".

    How erotic could they be if Internal Affairs said they are totally legal? Has PC actually seen said photos prior to posting his analysis or is he reporting what he was told by his friend in parliament. It strikes me that the Libz certainly have been forging a close relationship with the most antilibertarian MP in parliament. What strange bedfellows are forged when people are working to destroy the lives of others. Libertarians won't, and don't deserve, to be taken seriously until they can be seen as promoting liberty. For sometime all they do is snip, attack, rip down and destroy.

    Imagine this: "Leader of Alliance Party says PC Blog is disturbing and panders to what he believes is extremism." True in that he may find it disturbing and extreme but irrelevent. When someone stoops to reporting anonymous subjective opinions and acts like that tells readers anything factual they are not reporting the facts but trying to create an impression. The blog is not PC but it's not objective either. And so many libz call themselves objectivists!!! Ayn Rand is spinning like a top.

  7. PC says this went "unreported elsewhere". I asked a friend who works in Parliament what it was and she said she saw it and couldn't see anything odd about it. Maybe the reason it went unreported elsewhere was that there was nothing to report. Or perhaps it's a plot, a conspiracy?? I know some people are curious and trying to get actual copies so we'll know soon if Peters and PC are blowing smoke up our....

  8. Talk about the attack of the anonymites. And I don't believe one of you makes a point worth responding to, as anonymites freequently don't. But I will respond. Briefly.

    My report says what it says. Yes, I've seen the photographs and drawings. No, I didn't mention "publications" - I said photographs and sketches. Read what I wrote. Yes, I found them disturbing. No, Internal Affairs wouldn't have found them before because they were hidden. No, libertarians have no problem with photographs of child erotica being illegal - would you prefer that child erotica be made legal?

    So why was Winston's tabling not reported elsewhere? I have no idea. Ask the members of the MSM. Ask Rodney Hide why he averted his eyes while Winston tabled the photographs (although, in fairness, he could have objected to their tabling). Ask them why they're similarly subdues over the Berryman outrage.

    Face it, no one honestly possesses photos such as these. Why pretend otherwise. Pretending it says otherwise, or that these photographs aren't what they are or just might go away is a sure sign that you're evading the truth.

    And having said all that, is Jim Peron important? Absolutely not. But he has since arriving in New Zealand proved himself to be myopic, divisive and destructive - a purveyor of half-truths and an enthusiastic advocate for child erotica. Neither libertarianism nor classical liberalism in NZ needs someone with ideas and advocacies so downright odious. Having seen many of my friends taken in by his duplicity I can say quite openly that if I were they, I would be bloody angry at having been duped by him.

    If Rodney hasn't already torn a strip off the man, then it surely can't be far away. He deserves every bit of it.

  9. I'm still pissed off with Peron over the way he manipulated me; see my post here for a more detailed explanation.

    And for what it's worth, I share PC's lack of respect for people who post anonymously. It smacks of cowardice, or lack of conviction in the correctness of your arguments.

  10. I note with scorn the profound silence from Peron's anonymous defenders. I'm still waiting guys ...

    Or perhaps I've inadvertently hit on another 'advantage' to anonymous posting - an anonymous poster can't be held responsible to follow up with evidence for a groundless accusation or statement.

  11. Duncan Bayne.....gutless coward and shit stirrer! Jim has not been accused of anything criminal and won't be...The rats left the sinking ship pretty fast didn't they....?

  12. James, I've explained here and on the ILV list why I'm disgusted with Peron's behaviour - he lied to me, he used me, and I don't put up with that from anyone.

    If you'd like to refute the points I've raised (that Peron lied to me, resulting in me pressuring friends for over a year over the issue, then lied again, then clammed up when asked pointed questions) go right ahead. I note you haven't.

    Plus, while we're on the topic of gutlessness - why not post with your surname, & why not explicitly state your connection with & support for the ILV.

    It's interesting to see how quick you are to get stuck into Peron's detractors, and how that compares with the 'wait and see' and 'give him a chance' response to the presentation of proof against him on the ILV list.

    By the way, if you're still in touch with Jim, you might want to remind him that my offer still stands - if he wants to contact me (like he did *so* frequently when I was speaking out in his defense) all he has to do is provide some proof of his allegations that Perigo orchestrated the attack against him by Peters. I'm still waiting ...

  13. Itwassmokeafter all19 Apr 2005, 11:14:00

    PC didn't tell the truth. He says he personally saw the photographs. In fact the material Peters filed was six drawings not photographs. Maybe PC can't tell the difference between a photo and a drawing. None struck me as erotic but maybe PC or Peters have different tastes. And since the bookstore in question has not been open Mr. Peters didn't get them there either. Of course PC says they were "retreived" so maybe he and Winston broke in and pillaged the place but they sure as hell didn't buy them at a closed shop. I suspect if Mr. Peters told the truth he didn't find them in NZ at all.


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.