Thursday, 7 July 2005

Peron's problems are of his own making

Some bloggers have been feeling sympathy for the difficulties in which Jim Peron now finds himself. I'm not one of them.

'Looking in NZ' has said a lot about Peron’s problems, about which he seems to know an unusual amount, but hasn't once mentioned the elephant in the middle of the room that’s the direct cause of those problems: Peron was a professional advocate for sex with children, and a writer and publisher of material that advocated sex with children.

And not 'twenty years ago.' The copy of Unbound that Peron published was put about in the early nineties, not so long ago, and I understand there were even later editions. Uugh.

Ruth has wished "bad karma" on those who have "run him out of the country." Yet in my view it is Peron that has run himself out of the country by his own actions and his own lies.

Personally, I see no problems with barring from the country someone that advocates sex with children; someone that has stood up for, associated with and raised funds for those that practice criminal activity, and who has not resiled from having done so, but has intead denied it in the face of clear evidence and the many attestations of those who knew what was going on including collaborators, former owners of his shop, and those who observed his activities at events, meetings, and in his book shop back then.

It doesn't matter what Peters accused him of; what matters is what Peron did. And what he did was enthusiastically advocate sex with children. Does it disturb me then that his life has been made more difficult, then? No, it doesn’t. He deserves every difficulty put in his path.

IMHO, people that advocate criminal activity ~should~ be barred from entering the country – and I'm sure you agree with me that sex with children should be criminal. Frankly who, aside from Jim Peron and the members of NAMBLA and the Auckland Man-Boy Love Association, would disagree with that?

IMHO it's quite appropriate that such low-life scum are refused entry to New Zealand when their past is exposed. What would motivate such a person to think they should be welcomed in? Should Immigration overlook the past of such a person? Not in my moral universe. Such a person is the reason libertarians advovate immigration controls, so we can ensure that only peaceful people can pass freely. Will mistakes be made in the exercise of such controls? Sure, but this is not one.

'Looking In NZ' says it is wrong that Peron won't have access back here to sort out his business. So what. That's not their concern, and nor should it be. And frankly, it's not as if his business is a going concern in any case, and for the business category on which he entered it needs to be. Peron has been out of the country for the last few months by his own choice, and all that time his shop has been closed, presumably an admission that there’s no business going on anyway. And he does have a number of people available – albeit a dwindling number --- who still support him despite the way he’s used, abused and taken advantage of them. Surely between them they can organise his few possessions and send them on. Or they could sell them to cover some of his debts.

“What is happening is very disturbing. And it ought to disturb all of us,” says "Looking in NZ.' No, it ought to disturb Peron. Perhaps the experience will help him to ask of himself a few very serious questions. I wonder perhaps if ‘Looking in NZ’ will be asking any of those questions of himself?


  1. I think you are a bit too close to it to be entirely objective though, IMHO. You people got the vapours because he lied to you and it went from there.There are worse people in this country - Capill for one. Anyway stop pissing me off- remember what happened to Acidman's house ;-)

  2. In this country, every-one deserves a fair trial.

    If the judge thinks it is reasonable for the guy who punched Capill to get 2 years, then what punishment for a couple of low blows to the government officials wielding power like it is their God given right to make life difficult for people not officially charged with a crime.

    I thought Libertarians were aware of the potential for corruption with that type of abuse of power?

    I read the "evidence" and noted that some of the "facts" are disputable, and certainly could be interpreted in varying degrees of importance.

    Jim Peron's "case" has been entirely handled in the press and parliament, starting with far more serious allegations that poisoned the minds of many from the very start.

    I reserve judgement on Jim Peron at this point in time, mainly due to some unanswered questions, but it is clear to me the government has been heavy handed.

    Issuing a limited visa so that he could argue his case, and if necessary pack his bags, would have been reasonable as I do not think his presence in the country constituted a danger to anyone.

    Given he was presumed guilty and publicly executed of far worse crimes by Winston (and parliamentary privilege misused), it would have been a small token of balance.

  3. PC -

    With all due respect, it does matter " what Peters accused him of" - and how. Because Mr. Peters has a long history of making allegation under parliamentary privilege (or what I prefer to call the 'liar's licence') that, well, never quite seem to pan out. But why should he give a shit - there's zero accountability or come back is there?

  4. Considering Peron moved to South Africa in 1989 how could he have been printing Unbound in the ninetys...??? Sloppy PC

  5. James is partially correct

    The earliest copy we have of Unbound is 1987 just after the police raid. It is not the first issue, and the dates suggests it appears to have began publication around in 86 and continued untill 89.

    Ironically James response shows that the comments he has made elsewhere are false, it has been claimed that NAMBLA did not stay in the store until Peron left but that he kicked them out and they promptly moved to the Public Library. The problem is that the library records show that NAMBLA applied to meet in the Library in late 89. If Peron moved in this store then this shows they stayed till he left. Contradicting James and Peron’s claims.

    Interestingly enough, NAMBLA’s own comments confirm this they claim they stayed till the store was sold. Latter when asked by another person about this they said they would no longer comment on the issue until they had asked Jim Peron what he wanted them to say. A little while latter James and Peron claimed that NAMBLA had been mistaken and they now claimed they moved to the library before Peron left. However seeing Peron left in 89, as and they moved to the Library in late 89. James and Peron have again been shown to contradict the official records.

    Sloppy James.

  6. Well there you go. In any case, it's not 'over twenty years ago' that he was peddling this revolting stuff, as Peron and his one remaining fan have been spinning since his exposure as a total creep.


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.