I agree. It is, and it does.
Winston Peters says "that the “objectionable” classification showed that the publication would be illegal in New Zealand and that the publisher(s) would be prosecuted were it published here." He's probably right, and I agree with him that they should be if it were.
And I now fully expect to see cries once again that 1) Peron didn't publish the rag, but some Eastern European did whose name he can't remember; 2) libertarians are opposed to censorship so what's up with supporting prosecution of peddlers of child porn? 3) Peron is being demonised / entirely innocent / set up / irrelevant. In short, how dare I!
Well, let me answer those objections one-by-one.
1) Oh, come on.
2) Libertarians are opposed to the "Recording and distribution of recordings of crimes being committed against victims (e.g. genuine snuff, rape, child molestation films)." For a full discussion see here and here. And here.
3) Peron has done this to himself. He produced the stuff some fifteen years ago; he denied producing the stuff; he's responsible for his actions, no-one else. He's firmly exposed as a child pornographer, and as a liar. And unfortunately he isn't irrelevant, but he soon will be.
Jim Peron is a world-class manipulator who came to this country seeking to be a large(ish) intellectual fish in a small rather arid pond, and he proceeded to variously use and discard people who he thought could help him get there. Some are still being used by him, and will no doubt still refuse to acknowledge that they've been taken in by his blandishments.
If I were they, I would be damned angry at being taken for a fool. And I am. That's how I dare.
The full decision is given above.
[UPDATE: Scoop have a story on the latest developments here.]
[ADDENDUM: Decade changed.]
21 comments:
I can't resist, PC, I gotta ask you a couple of simple multi-choice questions to test your libertarian purity.
You agree that Unbound is "objectionable". Do you mean (a) objectionable in the legal sense, i.e., it should be banned, or (b) objectionable in the everyday sense, i.e., it's disgusting filth, or (c) both?
If you think that Unbound is objectionable in the legal sense, do you support the censoring of this journal because (a) it contains recordings or is a distribution of recordings of crimes being committed against victims, or because (b) "the magazine's content consistently puts forward a view" while avoiding any discussion of the reasons why society considers such a view mistaken?
In your links I can't find the details that Jim Peron PUBLISHED the mag. Do you have a link?
PC wont let people post comments to the smear engineered by his guru Perigo. Libz are a vicious cult and Perigo and PC have been trying for two years to destroy Peron because he didnt want qny thing to do with them
PC - so OK, we know why Winston got hold of this - purely to get at Hide. I still think most people don't know who Peron is and don't care.
If what you say is correct, and the evidence does seem reasonably damning, I still don't understand what is motivating your jihad. Why be vengeful about it -I don't see what you have to gain. What goes around comes around, eventually.
I can't speak for P.C., but I know why *I'm* mad about it - Peron lied to me so I'd defend him against his critics (including P.C. and L.P.). He used & manipulated me, and I don't like that.
Furthermore, he's bad for the image of Libertarianism in this country, consider the Scoop article about Peron's publication included mention of Libertarianism & the writing of Ayn Rand. Not a good juxtaposition.
I can understand why people like the anonymous poster above keep defending Peron though - it's difficult to publicly admit you've been duped.
My guess is that said anonymous poster acknowledges the truth at some level, which is why he's too scared to post under his real name. That's just a guess, mind you :-)
Everyone has been duped by someone at some point. Just because you see yourself as having been gullible doesn't mean you have to go on jihad. I have donated money to him in the past - personally I think he is no threat to the populace here - I'm more worried about terrorists. I do believe there is some truth in anon's comments as well.
Move on - no one cares. You are making yourselves look ridiculous, confirming what many believe - that libertarians are farooking crazy.
Ruth, you said: "If what you say is correct, and the evidence does seem reasonably damning, I still don't understand what is motivating your jihad. Why be vengeful about it -I don't see what you have to gain. What goes around comes around, eventually."
Well, I wouldn't call it a jihad, I'd call it a defensive action. Too many people misunderstand the notion of freedom as it is, and we don't need to add to that by having people like child pornographers and NAMBLAphiles, anarchist-capitalist nutters , and 'libertarian socialists' associated with us - and believe me we've seen them all, and seen them off. I want it publicly known that NZ libertarians have no truck with any of these entities.
Unfortunately the American libertarian movement hasn't been so quick to expunge them however, which is why Ayn Rand criticised them as 'hippies of the right' way back in the very early eighties, and another reason for ensuring that any association between us and this NAMBLA supporter are put publicly to rest.
"... we know why Winston got hold of this - purely to get at Hide. I still think most people don't know who Peron is and don't care. "
Winston just wants headlines for attacking people, and doesn't care what about - we all know that. Rodney's pretty good at that too, of course, but he can defend himself - and he's not responsible for Peron (although he really should have resigned from Peron's ILV Board by now in my estimation).
It would perhaps be nice to think that reports on Peron and his past are irrelevant, but the numbers flooding in here to read the Censor's decision suggest there is enormous interest, and not all of it prurient; further, his involvement with impressionable student groups and the like mean that his past is entirely relevant, since in my estimation his influence on these impressionable youngsters is not entirely benign.
Richard: My answer is (c) because the magazine promotes the view that sex between pubescent boys and middle-aged men is both titillating and acceptable, and publishes photos of naked young boys in the context of stories promoting this filth. Which part of that do you not find objectionable?
Berend: 'Unbound' contributor Frits Bernard was only too happy to confirm - to what he thought at first was a friendly overture - that Jim Peron was indeed the editor of the magazine. And to accept that such a magazine including Jim Peron's own writings and editorials could be produced in Jim Peron's shop for at least five years (in between NAMBLA meetings) by an Eastern European whose name Peron now just can't recall is like asking us to believe the Second Coming will happen next week in downtown Taihape. You can find Frits Bernard's correspondence here: http://www.lockefoundation.org.nz/research_articles.htm
Anonymous, you said: "PC wont let people post comments to the smear engineered by his guru Perigo."
Um, you're commenting here aren't you? So ...
"Perigo and PC have been trying for two years to destroy Peron because he didnt want qny thing to do with them"
Perhaps you should tell Ian Wishart your theories. He might even print them. Keep buying the tinfoil.
Ruth, you said: "Move on - no one cares." As I say above, visitor numbers unfortunately suggest otherwise. Remember that the first time Ayn Rand made the cover of the NY Times was to try and connect her writings to mass-murderer Timothy McVeigh's mass-murder. I don't want similar perverse connections made here, and I want to ensure they don't.
"I have donated money to him in the past..."
Have I said that I'm happy to be bought off... ;-)
The Libz are a strange bunch ... maybe not because they're a cult, though.
Slightly off topic, for all your professed admiration for rationality and goal-orientation, you seem to be sorely lacking it. For a (small “l”) libertarian living in New Zealand, it’s difficult to determine the point of the Libz existence.
Is your goal to achieve parliamentary representation and change? If so, do you really think this is realistic? What is your strategy once elected?
Or is your goal simply to spread the libertarian message? And if so, do you really think a representative political party is the best use of resources for this?
Or are you essentially a social club for libertarians who happen to like political activism? Is a political party really necessary for this? In fact, couldn’t it be said that hitching your wagon to what’s seen as a “loony fringe” detract from a message/mission that would otherwise receive wider support? Wouldn’t you be more likely to see the concrete results of change by influencing established parties?
I accept what you're saying PC - but in terms of vote-catching this is not going to fly - sure WE care and others like us- I just think there are more important things to be discussed. Like education ;-)I still enjoy his books and other writing BTW. And SOLO is a bit rich casting the first stone at times - I don't think rape and punching babies in the face is a humourous topic - I was appalled at that.
That is the last word, so please shut up ;-)
You answered my first simple multi-choice question. You think both that Unbound is disgusting filth and that it should be banned. To answer your question, I agree that Unbound is disgusting filth, but I don't think that it should be banned.
You didn't answer my second simple multi-choice question: Do you support the censoring of this journal because (a) it contains recordings or is a distribution of recordings of crimes being committed against victims, or because (b) "the magazine's content consistently puts forward a view" while avoiding any discussion of the reasons why society considers such a view mistaken?
Note that (b) comprises the reasons put forward by the Classification Office for banning Unbound.
On that basis alone, it seems to me that possession of a copy of Unbound, while reprehensible if it is for prurient purposes, is, nonetheless, a victimless "crime" and, as such, libertarians should oppose its legal classification as objectionable.
Justin, I've answered your substantive question at some length, so rather than post it here I've posted it on the main page here.
A couple of your other questions I don't answer in that main piece and I'll do so here.
You asked: "What is your strategy once elected?" I've answered that here in my comments on coalitions and the balance of power.
"In fact, couldn’t it be said that hitching your wagon to what’s seen as a “loony fringe” detract from a message/mission that would otherwise receive wider support?"
You see any more worthwhile stars worth hitching my wagon to?
" Wouldn’t you be more likely to see the concrete results of change by influencing established parties?"
Do you really think that political activism doesn't influence established parties?
Is the real problem with Peron that, in the few years that hes been here he has done more to promote Liberty and a free New Zealand than all the Libz have managed in the past 10 years...? Setting up the ILV which has an international hit website with more and more hits every week...? Printing Free Exchange, later to become New Liberal review which took the place of the increasingly irrelavant "Free radical" as the Libertarian banner journal in NZ..? Bringing and organising the World Freedom summit in Rotorua last year which was widely called the "Best ever",at the same time as Perigo was sniping at it while also angling for a speaking spot!!!?
Being a regular contributor to various news papers all around NZ while the Libz were missing in action...?? Remaining civil to people who he disagreed with leading to a far greater uptake of Libertarian ideas by people the Libz had cast aside as heritics...??? Selling more and more Libertarian books to kiwis the Libz had written off as" evil"..? Boy its no wonder Perig-ego spat the dummy...
Richard, you said: "...it seems to me that possession of a copy of Unbound, while reprehensible if it is for prurient purposes, is, nonetheless, a victimless "crime" and, as such, libertarians should oppose its legal classification as objectionable."
Free speech is NOT an endorsement of all views that happen to come out.
Just because it is legal to say "gas the Jews" doesn't mean it is a moral point of view to hold. And if saying it can be considered incitement to commit a crime in which there is a victim (or a number thereof) then personally, no, I wouldn't object to its classification as objectionable, no more than I would object to the Wannsee Protocol being banned and it's authors arrested.
James: Time to take the blinkers off old son. You've been had - and your anger shows you know that.
PC, its your envy ridden smear campaign thats coming off the rails.With the censors ruling likely to cause a few problems for your allies the Flannagans and the flow on effects that will have for you and others maybe its you who needs to take a breath eh...? :-)
What the heck this is all about? Child pornography should be illegal. It exploits our weaker member of society. Children are to be protected from this madness of sick adult fantasy!
Of course free speech is not "an endorsement of all views that happen to come out". Free speech is not an endorsement of any views at all. It is the right to express one's views, even views which other people find abhorrent.
You still haven't answered my second simple multi-choice question, to which I now add a third choice: Do you support the censoring of this journal because (a) it contains recordings or is a distribution of recordings of crimes being committed against victims, or because (b) "the magazine's content consistently puts forward a view" while avoiding any discussion of the reasons why society considers such a view mistaken, or because (c) possession of the magazine is an incitement to commit a crime?
Isn't there a tension between not objecting to the classification of Unbound as objectionable by the Classification Office, while objecting to the very existence of the Classification Office in the first place?!
Richard, you said: "Of course free speech is not "an endorsement of all views that happen to come out". Free speech is not an endorsement of any views at all. It is the right to express one's views, even views which other people find abhorrent."
Indeed it is, as both you and I know. I'm not sure everyone else here does, which is why I thought it was worth repeating.
"You still haven't answered my second simple multi-choice question..." I did, just not as you would have liked. :-)
"Isn't there a tension between not objecting to the classification of Unbound as objectionable by the Classification Office, while objecting to the very existence of the Classification Office in the first place?!"
No. In the present context that's who's doing the job.
Sid, you said: "What the heck this is all about? Child pornography should be illegal." We agree, as I say above and in the links. I don't think anyone here disagrees with that. Anyone?
James, you said: "With the censors ruling likely to cause a few problems for your allies the Flannagans and the flow on effects that will have for you and others maybe its you who needs to take a breath eh...? :-)"
There may be people here who know what the hell you're talking about James, but I'm afraid I'm not amongst them.
Its hard to understand what you guys talk about sometime, but I'm glad, I was worried for a while.
Ruth, you're right, I don't know who Jim Peron really is and I didn't really care. But if he has a habit of publishing child pornography, then it is simple, he needs to be sorted! (legally ofcourse)
"I believe that is the debate Sid, whether Peron published Unbound."
Oh come on. When Peron deigned to comment last (much eloquent silence since) he told everyone that despite the confession of Frits Bernard - published in Unbound at least 3 times -- that Peron was the editor, it was published 'out the back' on computer equipment that he could remember in detail by an Eastern European with a long name which however he can't now recall. Please. This Eastern European with a long name which he can't now recall used Peron's stories and editorials and published this 'out the back' for five to six years while Peron was out front hosting NAMBLA meetings and selling NAMBLA literature (and renting out the flat behind the shop to his co-worker jailed for 16 years for paedophilia), and Peron neither knew about the magazine or his story being in it, and nor can he remember the chap's name.
I believe that is a pig I see flying past my window, AL. Hope it didn't come from Waiheke. Time for the blinkers to come off. Rodney is refusing to comment, Peron is refusing to appear, and even liberal website GayNZ is starting to take down its articles in support of its former contributor, and also his contributions on 'family matters'. Not before time.
Post a Comment