|
End Ritual Abuse
Newsletter
Volume 2, Number 2, June 1995
PO Box 21231
Christchurch
New Zealand
Contents
1. E.R.A. Statement on Ritual
Abuse
2. Support from Sandra Coney
3. Well orchestrated Creche
campaign, by Sandra Coney
4. Rebutting the Apologists: ERA
replies
E.R.A. Statement on Ritual Abuse
Ritual
Abuse is a very frightening terminology to many, but unfortunately this is
the reality we are dealing with today. Denying ritual abuse exists is of no
help to anyone, most of all victims/survivors. It is a brutal form of abuse
to children, adolescents and adults, consisting of physical, sexual and
psychological abuse, and involving the use of rituals. It usually involves
repeated abuse over an extended period of time.
Physical abuse is severe, sometimes including torture and killing. Sexual
abuse is usually painful, sadistic and humiliating, intended as a means of
gaining dominance over the victim. Psychological abuse is devastating and
involves the use of ritual indoctrination which includes mind control
techniques.
ERA'S view is to keep the subject of ritual abuse on the public agenda, to
educate and inform readers of its prevalence, and to discuss the diagnostic
and treatment issues that arise from it.
Support from Sandra Coney
After
so much negativity from the mainstream media, it was heartening to read the
supportive arguments that Sandra Coney wrote in the Dominion Sunday
Times earlier this year. Coney, a well-known health issues and women's rights
campaigner, replied to the many letters she subsequently received, and was
further prompted to wrote another column on the civic creche case, which we
reprint on the next page. Below is the transcript of the letter she sent out
to some of us:
"I received a great number of letter from people in response to my
article about the Christchurch
creche case, so please forgive me for not writing personally to you.
The letter brought home to me how much the media coverage has concentrated on
the perspective of those who wish to deny what has happened and the effect
that this denial has had on families involved.
It was very helpful to receive all these letter and other documents that
people sent which I have read carefully. In particular it was helpful to read
the appeal court judges' views.
I have written another column about the case in this Sunday's paper [see
following article - ERA]. I hope this will contribute to enlightening the
public a bit further and providing a little balance to the media coverage
which has so far tended to doubt and confuse.
My best wishes to all children and families for the future. I can appreciate
how difficult it is for all to live with what is going on. The only comfort I
can offer is that there is a similar backlash after the Cartwright Inquiry.
You may recall Metro's 'second
thoughts' article which recanted on the earlier article by myself and
Phillida Bunkle, and sought to 'know better' than the judicial inquiry. This
did have an effect at the time, in making at least some people doubt what the
truth was. However, as time has gone on I feel few today doubt what happened
at National Women's Hospital. Confidence was rebuilt in the outcome by a
number of follow-up events - statements by professional groups, Clare
Matheson's book from a survivor's perspective, disciplinary action against various
doctors involved, the continuing public acceptance and support from official
bodies. I hope a similar process will go on with your case so that the public
becomes confident about the judgements that have been made".
Sandra Coney
(Report from) Dominion Sunday Times
April 2, 1995
Well orchestrated Creche campaign
By Sandra Coney
More
heat than light was generated when the media reported on the latest
developments in the Christchurch creche case. The former women creche workers
who were originally charged with offences have used the Employment Court decision as a window
of opportunity to attempt to relitigate all aspects of the case.
The complaint from the women's solicitor to Police Minister John Luxton about
police conduct in the case was carefully timed to capitalise on the new spate
of publicity. It could have been made at any time in the past two years And
despite media reports that Mr Luxton had "ordered" or "called
for" an inquiry, this is not so. He merely followed the routine procedure
he would have had I written claiming a policeman had kicked my cat. He passed
it on to the Commissioner of Police who passed it on to the Police Complaints
Authority, nothing Mr Luxton had done can be interpreted as a legitimation of
the complaint.
The employment court decision has nothing to do with the criminal charges. It
just decided the creche workers had been wrongly dismissed. The Christchurch City should probably have suspended
the workers on pay.
It is quite another matter and outside the jurisdiction of the employment
court to maintain the council should have kept the creche open and the police
were over-reacting in recommending it's closure.
The Education Ministry had withdrawn the creche's licence. It would have been
highly irresponsible of the council to keep it open and realistically what
parents would have wanted to take their kids to it? The former creche workers maintain they
ended up facing charges because there was a moral panic in Christchurch around
child sexual abuse, that, infected by the mood, police and sexual abuse
counsellors were prepared to believe as facts things that had not happened.
They have refrained from telling us whether they think Peter Ellis is also
innocent.
We need to remember the charges of indecent assault against the women were
outlined as a depositions hearing in front of a judge. It was his job to
decide if the police had adequately supported their charges, he found there
was a prima facie case to answer. The charges were dismissed in April 1992
under section 347 of the Crimes Act. Justice Williamson gave three reasons
1) There was insufficient weight of evidence against the women.
2) There was a potential for prejudice (because a jury might have judged the
women had failed to act properly to protect the children from Peter Ellis)
3) The delay in the trial while Ellis's case was heard could cause hardship
to them and the child.
He said none of these reasons was sufficient for a discharge but in
combination they were.
He declined to accept an application from the women's lawyer under section
344a of the crimes act that the "evidence was unsafe and
unreliable". He rejected the lawyer's argument that there were failures
on the part of the police or by social welfare during interviews.
It is also worth recalling that Justice Williamson declined the women's
application to the court for costs, saying their criticisms of the Crown's
conduct of the case were invalid.
I've laid all these out because I have been appalled at much of the recent
media coverage. We've been told public pressure is mounting for an inquiry
into the police conduct of the case, when the pressure is coming from
interested parties, such as the women's lawyer, Ellis's lawyer and a
psychiatrist called by the defence (that is, Keith Le Page).
Gaye Davidson represented herself as too traumatised to show herself on
Holmes - we were only allowed to see the bottom of her face. Three days
later, such inhibitions had evaporated when she appeared full-face on TV3's
20/20.
The 20/20 programme, which coincidentally screened hard on the Employment Court
judgement, was effective at telling the women's side of the story. No
contrary views were presented.
Once upon a time the media had a belief in objectivity and in eliminating
bias from news reporting. This goal seems to have abandoned these days,
leaving the public poorly served in the face of such a carefully orchestrated
campaign.
Rebutting the Apologists: ERA replies
Readers
may have also noticed Frank Haden's column in the Sunday-Star Times on the
same day that Sandra Coney wrote rhe column reprinted in this newslertes. His
reporting came from the other end of the spectritm, loaded with misleading
information. For example he states that "Employment Court Chief Judge
Tom Goddard, may his tribe increase, has smashed another great hole in the
ship of credibility on which the conviction and imprisonment of Peter Ellis
floats so insecurely. On Tuesday he released a painstakingly detailed
judgement supplementing his March 16 interim judgement awarding more than one
million dollars compensation to Christchurch Civic Creche workers for
wrongful dismissal. Although this judgement properly steers well clear of any
comment on the Ellis case, taken in sum it paints a dreadful picture of the
results of mass hysteria, bigotry, misguided counselling practices and
generally stupid credulity among public servants."
Haden is doing nothing other than misguiding readers of what the role of the
employment court really is. Let's get this into perspective. The employment
court judge is .here to ascertain whether or not there has been a wrongful
dismissa1. In making his decision, Judge Goddard had, among other things, the
following to say:
"The case before the court consists of the personal grievances of 13
applicants who, at the beginning of the last quarter of 1992, were employed
by the Christchurch City Council in the council's child care centre known as
the civic creche. Eleven were child care workers and two were cleaners. Their
grievances arose at half past five on the evening of 3 September 1992 when
the City Manager of the Christchurch City Council addressed a hastily
summoned meeting of the staff at the creche ... Mr G from the City Council
told those assembled that the Ministry of Education has withdrawn the council's
licence to operate the creche because the creche no longer complied with the
Early Childhood Regulations ... It is against a background of things settling
down to a degree of normality that on 1 September Mr G was asked to receive
at short notice a deputation from the Ministry of Education, the Department
of Social Welfare, and the police. This meeting took place early on 2
September ... A police inspector revealed to Mr G that there were ongoing
police investigations concerning the creche. He did not, and when pressed
would not, say what these investigations were about. However, from the nature
of the meeting and the persons present Mr G assumed that the investigations
involved child abuse by staff other than Peter Ellis and currently in
progress. The inspector said that because there were ongoing police
investigation, the discussion that was to occur at the meeting was to be kept
in strict confidence and even the Mayor could not be informed ... The police
then went on to tell him that, as a result of the ongoing investigations,
they were satisfied that the children at the creche were considered to be in
serious danger and as a result all those present at the meeting wanted the
creche closed that very day, not later than 1 pm ... The employment of the staff
did come to an end when the employees were dismissed for the stated reason of
redundancy. ... It is common ground that the attempt to dismiss the employees
on 3 September 1992 for redundancy by means of paying them four week's wages
in lieu of notice was a breach of the collective employment contract ... I
hold the dismissal on 3 September 1992 of the 13 applicants to have been
unjustifiable for two' reasons:
(1) that the council has not
discharged the burden of proving redundancy, and . not untested suspicion of
serious misconduct, was the true reason;
(2) even if redundancy had been the dominant reason, the council was not
entitled to move at once to dismissal in disregard of its contractual
obligations in the event of redundancies arising."
The comments Haden made of mass hysteria, bigotry, misguided counselling
practices, and generally stupid credulity among public servants is certainly
not what Goddard said. Goddard's job was to deal with an unjustified
dismissal and when that was decided upon, then deal with remedies to the
grievance. Let's remember we are talking about a hearing in an employment
court. What Haden and certainly other people are trying to put across to the
public is that a retrial was heard and Judge Goddard has agreed the police,
social welfare, parents and children were all on some sort of witch hunt. All
of the detail and issues in regards to the women's case and Ellis's case was
heard in a criminal court. Everything was closely examined in regards to who
did what and who said what and so on. Not only in front of a high court judge
but also in front of a jury.
Secondly, let's remember that in the employment court a lot more information
is considered to be admissible than it is in the criminal court. The
admissibility argument was closely scrutinised within the judicial system.
The point here is that the plaintiffs (particularly the four women originally
charged in connection with the civic creche case) included many issues in the
employment court that were already dealt with in the crimina1 court; eg. for
approximately two days the lawyer for the former creche workers (the same
lawyer that defended the creche workers during the civic creche case)
examined one child's disclosures, and how bizarre and ridiculous they were,
how the police went ahead pressing charges with no thought whatsoever, and
how the parents got into a mass hysteria about sexual abuse. This had
absolutely nothing to do with unjustifiable dismissal, and certainly was not
within Judge Goddard's jurisdiction to make recommendations or change
decisions or even give compensation to the women because he felt that it had
all been done wrongly by the police. That matter was taken forward to the
appeal court judges, none of whom came up with the assessment that Frank Haden
has arrived at.
To continue on with the misleading reporting. Haden states "The only
difference, although a significant difference for the imprisoned Ellis, is
the allegations against him were believed by the social workers, the police
and the jury, while the allegations against the women did not make it into
court. How can this be? Ellis is supposed to have been doing these appalling
things with all four women; the charges against the women are thrown out, but
Ellis is committed for trial and found guilty."
Again let's get this into perspective. The joint charge with Debbie Gillespie
and Peter Ellis were dropped because the child who had charges on Gillespie
and Ellis withdrew from the case due to the families own personal reasons.
Secondly, let's remember, that in regards to Keys, Davidson and Buckingham,
the joint charge made with Ellis was completely put aside due to the three
women getting discharged under section 347 for the very three reasons Haden
does not wish to share with readers. Ellis was also not convicted on that
particular joint charge. This does not mean that the children upon whom
convictions against Ellis resulted were not credible witnesses as Haden would
so very much like to put across to the public. If the jury and five subsequent
judges found them to be credible witnesses, why is it that Haden and others
have such difficulty with this issue?
Some people just seemed to have an incredibly bad problem of not accepting
decisions made by judges that have been tested five times.
|
