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?