Read as an abuse survivor	Comments on each paragraph
The Herald July 7, 2003 The Ellis Case Letters to the Editor by John Read (Devonport).	.
Lynley Hood and her supporters like to portray the increase in concern about child sexual abuse as mass hysteria. Those signing the Brash petition are, understandably, concerned about wrongful convictions. Aren't we all? But how many hundreds more must sign up before the campaign itself becomes mass hysteria?	Read suggests "we all" are concerned about wrongful convictions. But Read himself has never shown such a concern about the Peter Ellis case - the case where there is a major public concern about the possibility of a miscarriage of justice..
Some of these self-proclaimed experts in child abuse and the law are, in fact, agriculturalists, food experts, athletes and talkback radio hosts. They are joined by professors of aesthetics, dentistry, neurosurgery, neuroscience, history, philosophy, feminist studies and marketing.	Read lies in saying that the petitioners are "self proclaimed experts in child abuse". He implies that only experts in child abuse can be concerned about a miscarriage of justice. Such a suggestion is repugnant.
Under less hysterical circumstances they might remember the valuable traditions of staying within one's area of knowledge and not using one's university title to add false grandeur to personal opinions in other fields.	Read may well take his own advice. He adds the title "Dr" and his University position to most of his letters. His academic qualifications are not able to be verified.
As an abuse survivor I would be more sympathetic to this obviously well-intentioned campaign if it showed equal interest in children. Where is the call for royal commissions into why the vast majority of abuse cases never even get reported, let alone make it to court, and into why our child abuse intervention and prevention services are so under-resourced? Add that to the petition and I might join in the hysteria and sign it, too.	This provides the public with some understanding of why John Read is not objective when it comes to the subject of abuse. "Wounded healers" are not necessarily poor researchers (The experience may lead to better understanding and empathy with the experiences of others). However Read's own statements provide concern that he is not capable of being sufficiently objective in issues that have affected him personally In this final paragraph Read tells us that his lack of concern about the injustice to Ellis is due to his beliefs that there is a lack of concern about the quite separate problem of child abuse.