|
Photo: Dr John Read
(Devonport Flagstaff).
Abuse claims
based on shonky research
R Mann highlights (Sunday News,
Dec 28, 1997) Read's claims that "research shows 32% of NZ women are
sexually abused as children" - and details the basis of this claim as
"shonky research"
Read responds without justifying his exaggerated claim by suggesting those
who question his statistics are "denying abuse". R Mann had done nothing of the sort. Read
also implies that his statistics must be ok, because he claims they've been
published in a journal.
Read goes onto promote his hobby horse about child abuse contributing to
schizophrenia, as if this somehow justifies his shonky data.
How does John Read
exaggerate his claims?
We can gain an insight into how
John Read exaggerates the statistics he uses by a news report (Waikato Times,
May 29, 1998) in which Read includes within his definition of incest "
being forced to watch adult sex"
While "being forced to watch adult sex" is an offence, it is not
either the legal definition of incest, or a generally understood definition
of incest. John Read appears to have
made up his own definition.
A correspondent replied a few days later pointing out the way in which Read
was "boosting" his "incest figures". He suggested that
Read was "reinforcing his own need to believe incest is widespread"
How
else does John Read exaggerate his claims?
Returning to the shonky research
referred to above where Read claims "research shows 32% of NZ women are
sexually abused as children".
John Read's partner, Emma Davies appears to like this same bit of
research too, (NZ Law Journal, Sept 2003)
Read's partner gives us a different version!
She says "In a University
of Otago study by Jessie Anderson and colleagues, 32 per cent of a random
sample of 3000 adult women (up to 65 years old) stated they had unwanted
sexual experiences before they turned 16"
Ah, oh! So Read has done a little
translation? Somehow these (self)
reports of "unwanted sexual experiences" have become in Read's
words "sexual abuse". Why
has Read done this translation? Is he
deliberately trying to deceive?
And if all else fails,
he makes it up
Read talks about false allegations
in a news report about the visit to New Zealand of world renowned Memory
expert, Elizabeth Loftus. (Evening Post, Sept 2, 2000) He says in the report: "Of
course false allegations occur, as they do with all crimes, and when that
happens it can be devastating. But exaggerating the frequency of false
allegations is irresponsible"
Read provides no information about who has supposedly exaggerated the
frequency of false allegations. Read provides no information about the
claimed frequency. This leads this site to query whether Read is just making
up a story of such exaggeration.
Read continues: "For every false allegation there are
literally hundreds of genuine cases that are never reported to anyone."
Without some evidence for his assertions, Read is guilty of exaggerating
himself. Read provides no basis for his "statistics" - either of
the incidence of false allegations, or of the incidence of genuine
cases. How has Read measured these?
Is Read trying to
exaggerate genuine abuse, or minimise the problem of false allegations?
And why?
Both are real problems and deserving of concern.
|
