|
by John Read
Lynley Hood has finally revealed (New
Writing, October 19) the extreme bias that is usually so well concealed behind
her public persona of objective, scholarly investigator.
In trying to convince us that what she (objectively?) calls "the sexual
abuse hysteria" is still ongoing today, she cites some intriguing
examples. We are informed, for instance, that school teachers who have sex
with students "have been abusing nobody but themselves". She just
somehow knows, with an unswerving and enviable faith in her own judgment,
that none of these children was damaged in any way.
Even more revealing, however, is the inclusion of the "allegations
against Catholic priests" in her list of recent examples of the supposed
"witch hunt". Even the Catholic Church, hardly an example of the
radical feminist lesbian brigade that we are told is responsible for all the
"hysteria", acknowledges the tragedies and, to its credit, is doing
its best to provide redress and to prevent future abuse of children in its
care. Most New Zealanders, however saddened by all this, can see that this is
a significant step forward. But not Hood, who tries to educate us that it
isn't the abuse of the children we should be concerned about, but the
allegations against the priests.
She continues her unending calls for yet another inquiry into the one sexual
abuse case from which she generates her woefully prejudiced attacks on those
New Zealanders who try to increase our awareness of the problem or assist the
thousands who have been abused. Perhaps in the light of this new and
compelling evidence of her bias we should, instead, have an inquiry into the process
of how book awards are made.
|
by Lynley Hood
John Read's grotesque misrepresentation of my comments on sex abuse hysteria
graphically illustrates the problems faced by anyone who calls for rational
discussion of the issue.
In the article I argue that sexual abuse investigators cannot reliably
distinguish between true and false allegations of sexual abuse, and that the
damage being caused to New
Zealand society by false allegations
cannot be ignored.
Read's claim that I have thereby condoned sexual abuse is irresponsible,
vindictive and wrong.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
by Kerr Inkson,
When I
read Lynley Hood's reference to the victimisation of "teachers who abuse
only themselves", I assumed that she was referring to teachers being disciplined
and dismissed for accessing pornographic websites in private, using school
computers. In the context concerning "prurient computer technicians
...determining what responsible adults should be allowed to see, read and
hear", any reasonable person would draw the same conclusion.
However, Dr John Read (Letters, October 26), without any evidence, takes the
reference to mean that Hood considers that the actions of "teachers who
have sex with their students" are unexceptionable. Hood said no such
thing. She is right to use the term "witch-hunt" in her article:
Read's one-eyed excoriation of her is a good demonstration of the process of
demonising more and more "witches".
Sexual abuse is a major problem that we all need to do everything in our
power to oppose. This opposition is not assisted by those who continue, in
the interests of "increasing our awareness" to defend the
pillorying of the innocent along with the guilty. Hood's meticulously
researched book shows clearly that there is no real evidence that Peter Ellis
is a child abuser. Her case is, so far, unanswered and appears unanswerable.
It shows serious inadequacies in the legal processes through which Ellis was
convicted. Witch-hunters would do us a better service if they could show us
any flaws in Hood's research.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
by Alan Wilkinson
Lynley
Hood said nothing about school teachers who have sex with students.
"Purient computer technicians are determining what responsible adults
should be allowed to see, read and hear. Respected school teachers - who have
been abusing nobody but themselves - have had their careers and reputations
destroyed." It was clear that she was referring to recent cases of
teachers dismissed for downloading pornography.
John Read also claimed that she "tries to educate us that it isn't the
abuse of the children we should be concerned about, but the allegations
against the [Catholic] priests". Her single reference was: "The
explosion of historic allegations against Catholic priests escalates daily.
In my view, we're as much at risk today of having our lives, our families and
our communities ripped apart by false allegations of sexual abuse as the
people of Christchurch were in 1992."
Nobody wishes to see child abuse protected or overlooked. But false
accusations (and bureaucratic and professional incompetence) must be
relentlessly exposed to preserve liberty, justice and a free society.
My personal stake is that my wife, as a worker at the Christchurch Civic
Creche until only a year or two before the hysterical debacle there, could
have wound up in the dock as several of her colleagues and good friends did -
the subject of false and indeed ludicrous allegations. Dr Read should
consider seriously the impact of his ill-considered and intemperate statements.
|