Dominion Post
July 3 2003
An Open Letter to Phil Goff
by Chris Trotter
Dear Phil,
I can't say I'm surprised by your refusal to seek a royal commission of inquiry
into the Peter Ellis case, but I am angry. You have a rare opportunity to right
a terrible wrong _ and you should not refuse. Rather than vindicate people's
faith in the democratic state's ability to call wayward institutions to
account, you are deepening a growing disillusionment with a system whose first, last and eternal priority appears to many to be
self-protection.
But what, exactly, is being protected?
Aren’t you unsettled by a conviction some say is based upon an allegation that
Ellis was party to a criminal act committed by an unknown man, at an unknown
place, at an unknown time and date. And
aren’t you also unsettled by the misgivings of Professor Graham Davies of
Actually, Phil, I think you were understandably concerned about where a royal
commission might lead. Because you know as well as I do that the Ellis case
stands at the crossroads of ideology, religion, law and politics, and that by
following any one of these roads to their murky terminus, a diligent inquiry
would almost certainly uncover some very ugly and unpalatable truths.
Like the extent to which radical feminism's demonisation
of men and infantilisation of women had come to
influence the way in which laws were written, health strategies devised, social
workers trained, and counselling delivered.
Or the way in which extreme Christian fundamentalist beliefs had come to
pervade senior levels of the police force, beliefs which included an
unquestioning acceptance of the existence of demonic forces, Satanic
cults and a vast, international, criminal conspiracy to engage in and cover up
the ritual abuse of thousands of very young children.
And how these two belief systems - radical feminism and Christian
fundamentalism - combined in the Christchurch Civic Creche case to produce a
moral panic of such extraordinary force that even the New Zealand judiciary was
persuaded that Ellis had a case to answer, a decision which led to him being
convicted and sentenced for bizarre crimes he did not and could not commit.
That terrible miscarriage of justice would have been bad enough on its own, but
what made it 10 times worse was the failure of New Zealand's judicial system
(in marked contrast to the review courts of the United States and Britain) to
right the wrong that was done to Ellis. The collective failure of our senior
justices to recognise the bizarre character and manifest shortcomings of the
Ellis trial, and to overturn its verdict, is probably the most worrying aspect
of the entire case.
There's just so much at stake, isn't there, Phil? The deeply held ideological convictions of at least half the Labour
caucus; the intellectual capability and trustworthiness of the senior echelons
of the police force; the probity and reliability of our senior judges.
Put all those questions up for examination by an independent commission of
inquiry and you could end up with a political scandal of truly immense proportions.
Eh, Phil?
And yet, is the choice facing you and your government any graver than the
choice which confronted Rob Muldoon over the Arthur Alan Thomas case? Thomas'
two convictions had also been upheld by the Court of Appeal, and the honesty of
the police was every bit as contested by Thomas' defenders. There was even a
book, Phil, remember, by David Yallop: Beyond
Reasonable Doubt.
Muldoon read the book, Phil, just as he read the writings of Pat Booth and Dr
Jim Sprott. Phil, he trusted his gut. And he trusted
his nose. Because the Thomas case stank to high heaven, Phil.
It stuck in his nostrils.
That's why Muldoon did something about it.
So, tell us again, Phil: Why don't you think again?