|
|
Child sex
abuse hysteria and the Ellis case |
|
|
|
|
The wisdom of
Gordon Waugh - Index |
|
|
We read with much
interest the transcripts of the interviews with the Creche Children published
in the Star-Times yesterday. They clearly show how those children were
coerced into making outrageous and ridiculous allegations of abuse by Peter
Ellis and others. This has been a common practice from the early 1990's and
is still used today. When we were operating
COSA (Casualties Of Sexual Allegations Incorporated) from 1993 to 2000, we
dealt with scores of similar cases, and thousands of cases of "Recovered
Memory", all created by badly trained counsellors using unscientific,
unethical, and unsafe methods. We still get calls for help today from people
wrongly accused as a result of this destructive gobbledygook. Many counsellors do not
work from an evidential base or conduct external investigations, but rely on
their assumptions, beliefs and opinions, and a presumption of guilt. If their
call to "Believe the Children" is valid, it demands they must
believe everything that children might say, not just the selected, convenient
parts which supports their own opinions and preconceptions. They force
children to grow up wrongly believing themselves to have been abused. That is
a shocking imposition. On a "No
Names" basis, in a recent case, CYF social workers believed two young
brothers had been sexually abused. They had no evidence, just a feeling. A
female psychotherapist interviewed the boys. One boy didn't
"disclose" any abuse, so she quickly bypassed him. The other boy
was more suggestible, and she believed, without evidence of any sort, that he
must have been abused. She had five interviews with him and wanted more. The
boy ultimately made incredible allegations against his father, and the father
was later charged. The interrogation method she used was virtually identical
to what the Creche children were exposed to, and remains a standard practice.
Three main causes Our experience suggests
there are three main causes of this destructive problem. Firstly, no legislation
exists to control the provision or quality of counselling services to the
public. Any person can hang out their shingle and offer counselling services
to the public - there are no limitations. What little training counsellors
might have is a mish-mash of superstition, assumption, unproven theory and
psycho-babble. They are not required to qualify by training or examination at
recognised training institutions, be registered or licenced, or hold an
annual practising certificate. The effects of untested and unproven
allegations of sexual abuse made by them and their clients are widespread,
and devastating to our society. Secondly, Section 23AB
of the Evidence Act was introduced, without good reason, to remove the
requirement for corroboration in sexual cases, and to remove the
time-honoured mandatory judicial warning of the dangers of convicting on the
basis of uncorroborated evidence. The introduction of Section 23G, allowing
so-called "experts" to give evidence, opened the door to belief and
fantasy masquerading as evidence. Other sections are also flawed. Thirdly, ACC methods
encourage false claims of abuse. In claims for physical injuries, ACC demands
the highest level of proof of injury, often referring claimants to
specialists. But in sexual abuse claims, no such proof is demanded. Without
external investigation, ACC relies heavily on the uncorroborated, untested
narrative of the claimant and a counsellors opinion, beliefs and assumptions
as to the psychological condition of the claimant. Sexual abuse claimants are
not required to provide proof of abuse or of mental injury, or name an
alleged perpetrator, or report such allegations to the police. Tens of
thousands of such ACC claims were never tested by the Courts. Despite Phil Goff's
ostrich stance, a Royal Commission of Inquiry is needed to sort this mess
out. |
