|
|
Child sex
abuse hysteria and the Ellis case |
|
|
|
|
The wisdom of
Gordon Waugh - Index |
|
|
Unlike A reasoned view of the
Ellis case suggests that had the jury been exposed to the full range of
evidence, progression of the children's stories from ordinary events to
impossible, excruciating torture, would have been obvious. Prosecution credibility
and objectivity fell on their own swords because they ignored commonsense and
reason, not because of Christianity or "standard liberal tactics". Little children were
subjected to repeated interviews over extended periods by misguided, zealous
and poorly trained sex abuse counsellors, who took their belief systems to
extremes to find abuse where none existed. The children are
victims of counselling abuse, not sexual abuse. Uncorroborated and
imaginative "evidence" by frightened children is the very essence
of past witch trials. That police, judge and
prosecution got caught up in the iatrogenic (disease caused by medical treatment)
fantasies of little children and counsellor-speak, is the madness.
"Christian leanings" would have served justice better. Society in general, and
the children and Ellis in particular, would benefit from Mr Lelievre channelling
his religious passion to help undo the madness. Sunday Star Times In your editorial (July
21), you compare the trial of Peter Ellis with the witch trials of the 17th
century and note that the detective inspector in charge of the case appeared
on television declaring society was reaping the fruits of mocking God and the
likes of John Banks. This is a standard
liberal tactic: Label your opponent as a religious extremist and hope to
undermine their credibility. In fact, the production
staff of the Holmes show appeared to have passed an off-the-record comment by
the police officer on to Paul Holmes. It was Paul Holmes who brought it up in
the interview. The officer replied that as a society we could not afford to
mock God. What has all this to do with the guilt or innocence of Peter Ellis?
Is it the editorial view of this newspaper that because someone is a
Christian, they are unable to objectively handle a criminal investigation? If
so, on what basis? What is this
"madness that the police, judge and prosecution get caught up in"?
Do you suspect them of Christian leanings as well? |
