Sunday, April 03, 2005


What a blessing that the rushes of blood to the head over the Jim Peron affair are now subsiding. Twenty years ago, in San Francisco, Jim Peron expressed the view that adult-child sexual relationships are not always abusive, a view also espoused by NAMBLA, the North American Man/Boy Love Association. He now rejects his former view as mistaken and bad.

Classical liberals and sundry defenders of freedom of speech are fond of quoting Voltaire, who is supposed to have said
I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.
The Locke Foundation's Madeleine and Matthew Flanagan, who style themselves as classical liberals, have put a great deal of effort into investigating Jim Peron's past and acting as the prosecution in his trial by media, but I have yet to hear them say
Monsieur [Peron], I detest what you write, but I would give my life to make it possible for you to continue to write.
I guess it's hard to defend someone to the death when you're busy running them out of town.


At 1:30 pm, Anonymous Anonymous said...

It says more about them (Locke people) than Peron. The whole thing is appalling and reminds me of the Salem witch trials. Let's not pretend these fundamentalists are allies in the fight for freedom.

At 8:51 am, Blogger Rich said...

It's easy to tolerate the easily tolerable.

At 10:16 am, Blogger Duncan Bayne said...

I'm seriously pissed off with Jim Peron for a different reason. For over a year, I've been criticising Perigo and others for making claims about Peron and his views (current or past) on sex with minors, because they had no hard evidence of same. I even tried badgering Perigo into making a formal apology to Jim.

Peron, for his part, explicitly denounced such views, claiming he was a victim of malicious slander, and that the magazine in question simply didn't exist (yes, he explicitly denied its existence), and that he isn't and wasn't a supporter of NAMBLA or its position on sex with minors. He certainly never suggested, as he's doing now, that he once might have supported them but since changed his mind.

Then, the magazine comes to light, the sketches are found in his bookstore - and what happens? He then accuses Perigo of conspiring with Peters et al. to slander him (it isn't slander if it's the truth, & the hard evidence is there for all to see). When I ask him for proof of *his* allegations against Perigo, he claims fatigue and emotional stress, clams up, and hasn't yet got back in touch with me, despite having the time to write articles for the ILV.

I told him that I didn't want to hear from him unless it pertained to evidence that Perigo was in fact conspiring against him - and I haven't heard from him since.

So - I was bloody well used by Peron, lied to and manipulated, and am now being ignored because I've ceased being of any use to him, and have started asking *him* pointed questions.

At 11:48 am, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Duncan is Perigo's webmaster. So he's very biased. He is also distorting the facts. Baynes knows he's distorting the facts. Peron was asked about something called Forum which he said he never heard of. they produce another publication which Peron says was produced by one of the many people who rented mail boxes in his business (they had 200+ mail boxes for rent to the public). He says he didn't publish it. How would he keep track of over 200 different businesses using their mail service?

Baynes ignores the fact that Perigo said Peron was a convicted child molester which turned out to be a lie. In fact there were numerous Perigo lies that Winston repeated. Peron was not deporte as was claimed. Never arrested as claimed. Didn't operate a porn shop in Auckland as was claimed. Wasn't in violation of his immigration terms as claimed. He also documented that the only place the allegations Peters gave out (which Perigo claimed came from the "web") could come from were Perigo's own web site (the one Duncan runs). In fact the document Peters submitted with the accusations were a page from Perigo's SOLO web site. And Duncan says Peron lied to him and whines about poor innocent Perigo. Please get real. How did Peters get the page from Perigo's web site? Not by a Google search because it didn't show up there (check which verified that). The porn shop allegation came first from Perigo's Libertyloop over a year ago. Peters also filed a copy of a document not in public records but which Peron had given Perigo and which only a tiny handful of people had. Perigo also admitted to various people that he did spread the story. We have around 15 people so far who said Perigo spread it to them. Several MPs other than Peters say Perigo approached them to try to get them to run with the story. One suspects the only evidence Baynes will accept is a signed confessionl

At 4:07 am, Blogger James said...

So Baynes a lying sack of shit...who's surprised?

At 2:33 am, Anonymous Teagan said...

Thanks for taking the time to share this.


Post a Comment

<< Home