|
Otago Daily Times
August 29, 2003
Has radio joined persecution of Ellis?
by Chris Trotter
Chris Trotter is editor of the New Zealand Political Review .
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's persecutors are readying themselves to
crucify him 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's 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.
"Nathan" is alleging Mr Ellis "abused" him in 1985,
several months before Mr Ellis actually began working at the Christchurch Civic
Creche. Strange? Even though "Nathan" - then aged 4 - 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's 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.
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 creche workers, 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, who 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 Peter Ellis.
|
