The Dominion Post
August 29, 2003
Another cross to bear
by Chris Trotter
Can a man be crucified twice? Until this week, I
would have said that such a thing was impossible. But I underestimated the
frightening capacity of irrationality to inflict harm — even when it has been
exposed and placed under pressure. Or, perhaps I should say especially when
it has been exposed and placed under pressure.
I do not intend to make the same mistake twice. Here, then, is a warning to
everyone who still believes that our society should be based on the exercise
of Reason: preparations are under way to bring new charges of sexual abuse
against Peter Ellis. Not content with incarcerating this unfortunate man in
Paparua Prison for seven years, Mr Ellis' persecutors are readying themselves
to crucify him all over again.
In perfect harmony with the shrieking irrationality that has characterised so
much of the Christchurch Civic Creche Case, we are not permitted to publish
the identity of the people so determined to go on punishing Mr Ellis. The
same legal system that allowed a man to be convicted on the uncorroborated
evidence of very small children has granted permanent anonymity to the
sources of the charges levelled against him.
Protected from public exposure and, therefore, from public scrutiny, Mr
Ellis' persecutors can operate without fear that they will be
"door-stepped" by journalists, or ambushed by television crews.
They know that their lives will not be transformed into public carcasses for
the vultures of the news media to tear apart. No, these torments, the most
refined tortures of the modern age, are reserved exclusively for Mr Ellis and
his family.
The threat of a renewed attack on Mr Ellis comes in the form of a young man
we know only as "Nathan" and, as has happened before in this
emotionally claustrophobic case, his mother. According to "Nathan",
Mr Ellis "abused" him in 1985 - several months before Mr Ellis
actually began working at the Christchurch Civic Creche. Strange?
Too right, but as you will discover, "Nathan's" story gets a
lot stranger.
Even though "Nathan" - then aged four - had such a strong aversion
to the Christchurch Civic Creche that his mother felt compelled to withdraw
him after a few weeks' attendance, she nevertheless failed to get in touch
with the authorities when the original sex abuse charges were laid against Mr
Ellis six years later.
This, in spite of her own testimony that when Mr Ellis' image first appeared
on the television screen in 1991, her son blanched with terror, ran out of
the family home and took refuge in a tree for several hours. Now, I don't
know about you but if my child reacted like that to the televised image of an
accused child molester, let alone an accused child molester who "hung
around" a creche my child had once attended, I'd pick up the phone. But,
apparently, "Nathan's" mother was so busy with her business that
the full significance of the creche case simply passed her by.
Nathan's own testimony is even stranger than his mother's. Apparently, upon
entering puberty, he began to feel strange around girls and became acutely
self-conscious when undressing in the school changing rooms. This, he tells
us, led him to the conclusion that he was not "normal".
How do I know all these things about "Nathan" and his mum? Because
Radio New Zealand's Nine-to-Noon programme
felt obliged to broadcast a 40-minute interview with them. Of all the strange
things associated with that interview, the strangest is surely the decision
to share it with the nation.
Why? Because Radio New Zealand knew that Mr
Ellis was not employed at the Christchurch Civic Creche at the time
"Nathan" claims he was abused. It also knew that "Nathan"
had accused other crèche workers of the same offence but, presumably on legal
advice, it declined to explore these with him on air.
Similarly, it was aware that "Nathan's" charges had been communicated
to the police and that the police had decided against further legal action.
Finally, it was unable to publicly corroborate "Nathan's"
accusations and, even more alarming, its informants were granted anonymity.
So why did Radio New Zealand broadcast the
interview? Was it simply because the accusations had been made? Was that
enough? I sincerely hope not, because that would mean Radio New Zealand has crossed the line from journalism to
witch-hunting; to preparing the public for a private prosecution by
"Nathan" and his mother.
A second cross for Mr Ellis.
|