The Burden of Proof – Peter Ellis
Early last month, convicted child molester Peter Ellis suffered a heart attack.
Ellis may be a chain smoker who is partial to red meat and the odd tipple, but the most probable cause of his condition appears to be stress. Ellis has waited nearly two years for a select committee to decide whether to recommend a Royal Commission of Inquiry into his 1992 conviction of multiple counts of child abuse. His case is almost unanimously regarded as the greatest miscarriage of justice this country has seen since Arthur Allan Thomas. Peter Ellis has been waiting a long, long time for justice, and at the rate things are going, time may be running out.
Is the Government ever going to swallow its pride and vindicate Peter Ellis, or are they happy to sit back and wait for history to repeat itself?
Here is the rest of an extensive article about the Peter Ellis and the Cristchurch Creche Case by Anthony Frith.
There is a lot more about Peter Ellis on this site here.
Comment by JohnP — Sun 15th May 2005 @ 10:11 pm
False allegations of sexual abuse made to CYFS and Family Court have catastrophe consequences for a innocent bloke. I can testify to that from experience.
Comment by Peter Burns — Mon 16th May 2005 @ 10:25 pm
how do you think we have got ourselves into a situation where neither side can agree as to whether allegations about rape and sexual abuse are ‘true’ or not?
the ‘all-men-are-rapists’ allegation may or may not be a useful one but if one was to argue that ‘no-men-are-rapists’ that would be just as bad. remember that prior to the feminist movement rape and sexual abuse cases against women were quite often dismissed on the grounds that the woman in question was dressed provocatively, or for some equally absurd reason. while fortunately this doesn’t happen these days, we must be vary wary of trying to push the scales too far back to that state of affairs.
Comment by damian — Tue 17th May 2005 @ 6:07 pm
Search this site for the answers.
I’ve never heard a single person make that argument, have you?
I don’t know of anyone who wants to do that either. I do know that a lot of people, men and women, insist that sexual abuse and rape cases to be judged on genuine evidence untainted by fake “experts” and held to a “beyond reasonable doubt” standard of proof.
Comment by JohnP — Tue 17th May 2005 @ 9:22 pm
well, if i knew nothing about the issues involved, and menz.org.nz was my only source of information, i’d be well ready to believe that no-men-are-rapists.
i have yet to read a single bit of writing here that actually confronts head-on the issue that men do rape women, and that men do beat, intimidate, and deal out sundry violence upon women, to a much, much greater degree than women do upon men, in any depth or in any way other than tokenism. feel free to prove me wrong though.
so long as these things remain true, equal justice between men and women, especialy where sexual issues are concerned, is going to be an incredibly hairy issue.
Comment by damian — Tue 17th May 2005 @ 10:48 pm
Damian,
take a deep breath.
Now listen chum,cos i only wnat to say this once see.
You’ve read one too many copies of Broadsheet mate. Look deeper into the feminist ‘research’ you’ve obviously swallowed hook, line and sinker and see another viewpoint. Neither gender is more violent than the other.
Geddit, or do you want to continue being a misandrist enemy of mine?
Stephen Gee
Comment by Stephen — Wed 18th May 2005 @ 12:45 am
Can you point to a single instance in the 750-odd pages of this site where that claim is made?
None of the activists I know condone any violence, sexual, physical or psychological, whether it is perpetrated by men or women. There are any number of organisations and individuals addressing male violence, menz.org.nz was set up to promote ‘men’s experience’, and the content reflects what several thousand men have shared with us over the last decade.
One of our most important demands is that public policy and legislation should be based on scientific reality rather than the feminist ideology you seem to espouse.
Comment by JohnP — Wed 18th May 2005 @ 9:47 am
Amen to that John P.
Damian.
You appear to be simply reacting from a brainwashed feminist mindset. Not surprising given the cultural capture of so many in NZ by our feminazzi compatriots.
Deep breaths, Warren Farrel and abstention from all things feminist for a while should help.
If fever persists see a doctor.
Comment by Stephen — Wed 18th May 2005 @ 12:56 pm
i did not allege that the no-men-are-rapists assertion is made anywhere on menz.org.nz.
i see a lot of talk about false allegations of sexual harrassment, but nowhere is it acknowledged that some allegations are /not/ false.
if all of the information emanating from a particular organisation espouses a particular view about the allegations it confronts (namely, that they are false) then the image given is one of that organisation believing that in most if not all cases any and all allegations are false.
one says as much about oneself through what isn’t said as through what said.
i am a man. this is my experience.
this is starting to feel somewhat ad hominem. i reject the assertion that i am ‘reacting from a brainwashed feminist mindset.’ i have approached feminism from a confrontational, rational viewpoint, have digested the arguments given, rejected those that i disagreed with or felt were coming from false assumptions, and accepted only those with which i agreed and which were able to convince of their correctness.
Comment by damian — Wed 18th May 2005 @ 2:27 pm
Ad hominem indeed – Great !
Literal translation – for the people – as my old Latin tutor would have said.
So you’ve approached feminism from a confrontational, rational viewpoint, but not read any Warren Farrel yet.
Seems like you’ve got allot more to confront yet then mate!
I won’t dishonor Farrel’s theses by turning them into mini soundbites for you. IMO they deserve much more respect.
Good luck.
Comment by Stephen — Thu 19th May 2005 @ 2:04 pm
Actually, I think the writer of the article on Varisty is being unfair to yeti-hunters when he says they are like the Christchurch Creche Inquisitors. I just this month saw a great show on the National Geographic Channel (I live in Brooklyn, New York, USA) about how the Yeti/ Sasquatch/ what-have-you, might actually exist. And seeing as how there is plenty of forensic evidence (like, erm-ahem, *film* and, well-well-well-erm-ahem, *footprints*, whose only remaining verification test is the lengthy process of seeing if the anthro docs can get fingerprint reconstructions from the toelike stuctures’ imprints) for the Abominable Snowman’s actually being there, I think Mr. Frith owes the Yeti-hunters a heaping helping of hat-eating apology. It is quite possible, say the anthropologists who believe in Yeti’s existence (and “Yeti” is capitalized, BTW) that the “other [than human] line” of Greater Primates has survived, but been pushed to the margins like so many other endangered species in this world.
Comment by Sarah Jacobs — Wed 25th May 2005 @ 9:02 am