MP Dr Yang Extends the Witch Hunt
The witch hunt against sex offenders is a significant part of the wider war against men. Of course it’s important to protect children (and adults) from sexual violence and exploitation and to punish those who disobey relevant laws. However, we have increased punishment to disproportionate levels so that gentle illegal sexual touching is now often punished more harshly than killing or permanently maiming someone. Also, we have step by step reduced protections against wrongful conviction specifically in sexual offence cases. For example, special restrictions have been imposed on cross-examination of sexual complainants and convictions have been made possible on the basis of inadequate evidence including allegations devoid of supporting evidence and allegations claimed to be accurate after many decades of rumination and memory revision often under the influence of suggestion by therapists. These and many other reductions in protection against wrongful conviction (and punishment) have been introduced specifically and exclusively for sexual allegations. They represent erosion of justice and there is no more merit for such erosion when it comes to sexual allegations than for any other class of alleged offending. However, sexual offences are mainly committed by men and this is the key factor.
The latest development in this witch hunt is National MP Jian Yang’s private member’s bill to prevent child sex offenders from changing their names. There may be merit in some version of this idea, but why should any such provision not be considered similarly important for other offenders? For example, what about
– teachers who have been convicted for physical or emotional abuse of children;
– CYF caregivers who are convicted for physically assaulting, financially exploiting or placing at risk the children they were paid to look after;
– corrupt cops and public officials;
– employees convicted of stealing from their employers;
– repeat fraudsters;
– corrupt used-car salespeople and other business people;
– women who marry men in order to exploit them financially including making false allegations;
– career burglars who may seek to live incognito in your street;
– P cooks who may seek to rent your rental property;
– or many other offence categories?
Dr Jian’s bill is a knee-jerk one in response to the case of Terito Henry Miki who changed his name and used fake papers to get work as a teacher in six different schools despite having offended sexually against his nephew and despite officially being on an extended supervision order preventing him from associating with children. The irrationality underlying Dr Jian’s bill is highlighted by the following:
– There was no indication that Mr Miki committed or attempted any sexually inappropriate behaviour, not even ‘grooming’, in any of the six teaching roles.
– Mr Miki’s sexual offence was against a close member of his family and there was no evidence of sexual offending or propensity for such offending in his previous teaching roles.
– Mr Miki’s offending history included 62 convictions for fraud and many other convictions plus an additional unknown list from Australia. His case may have provided an argument for preventing convicted fraudsters, thieves and psychopaths from changing their names, but seeing his case as a reason to prevent all those ever convicted of a child sex offence (especially keeping in mind that protections against wrongful sexual convictions have been eroded) can only be based on irrational superstition.
Dr Jian claimed that his bill was intended, among other things, to assist in offender rehabilitation. The opposite will be true because the sex-offender witch hunt is widespread in our community. Names are widely and thoroughly published. Ongoing mob justice and community alienation for such offenders can only serve to increase their stress and therefore their risk of new offending, and to inhibit their efforts to meet their needs legitimately and to build a worthwhile non-offending life. In some cases, changing one’s name will be the only chance for a sexual offender to be able to establish a viable law-abiding existence.
It may be useful to enable a sentencing or parole Court to make an order against name changing in specific cases. And/or perhaps a provision would be sensible enabling an offender to apply for Court permission to change his or her name. However, preventing name changes should neither be applied arbitrarily and permanently to every sexual offender regardless of the circumstances, nor be restricted only to sexual offenders.
The natural conclusion of this is that people will stop legally changing their name and manufacture new identities illegally.
I don’t recommend putting Heather du Plessis Allan up for this one, it’s already cost an MP is job.
Comment by Downunder — Thu 3rd December 2015 @ 10:29 am
Having been a victim of false allegations I totally agree with your “Also, we have step by step reduced protections against wrongful conviction specifically in sexual offence cases. For example, special restrictions have been imposed on cross-examination of sexual complainants and convictions have been made possible on the basis of inadequate evidence including allegations devoid of supporting evidence and allegations claimed to be accurate after many decades of rumination and memory revision often under the influence of suggestion by therapists. These and many other reductions in protection against wrongful conviction (and punishment) have been introduced specifically and exclusively for sexual allegations. They represent erosion of justice and there is no more merit for such erosion when it comes to sexual allegations than for any other class of alleged offending” statements which are 200% accurate.
Knee jerk reaction parliamentary bills introduced by MPs are more often than not to feather the cap of the promoter than serve the interests of society. Who had heard of Dr Jian Yang until now? He should clean his own house before pretending to be a society savior.
Comment by JONO — Thu 3rd December 2015 @ 10:31 am
Brave on you to take this on. In the UK it is covered by the Sexual Offences Act 2003. Anyone who commits a crime that comes under this has to sign the Sex Offenders Register once a year. If anyone has committed a crime that comes under the sexual offences legislation the SOA makes it illegal for anyone to change without informing the authorities.
I think the minimum amount of time they sign the register is 7 years but it can go up to life.
Comment by Uptop — Thu 3rd December 2015 @ 10:43 am
Brave and foolish, probably! We know what happened to those who spoke up against the witch hunters during the inquisitions…
Comment by Man X Norton — Thu 3rd December 2015 @ 11:39 am
In the case of being wrongly accused I have more pity than I can express for those this happens to. The law takes far too long and sometimes fails completely when getting justice for these poor individuals whose lives and reputations are ruined. But I have no issue at all with sex offenders being punished at times more harshly than killing or permanently maiming someone. What does the writer of this consider “gentle illegal sexual touching”? Non penetration? Anyone sane and non perverted would not even entertain the idea that these offenders be let off lighter because the abuse was “gentle”! The emotional damage any level of sexual abuse causes is unforgivable being life long for the victim of these scumbags after all. How dare they do that to an innocent child! Personally I think these creeps should be locked up for life, and if there is absolutely 100% no doubt of their guilt, castrated.
Sexual offenders should never be allowed to change their names too right. They forego that privilege when they choose to interfere and destroy their victim’s life. They deserve to be publicly named and shamed forever, and the public need to be told where every one of these deviants resides so that they can keep their children safe. Otherwise they could be right under our nose and not a one us would know. Scary thought?
No pity at all for any sex offender here! If you are one you deserve all the wrath and restriction the law and society can dish out to you, for the rest of your life.
Diddums if you think that’s unfair!
Comment by Nick — Thu 3rd December 2015 @ 11:43 am
Comment by Downunder — Thu 3rd December 2015 @ 12:31 pm
The public have every right to know who you are out there and where you live if you commit this perverted act. If via the media, so be it. When one chooses to interfere with a child it becomes the business of the whole community. If a sex offender doesn’t want that shame, don’t be a sex offender!
Comment by Nick — Thu 3rd December 2015 @ 12:43 pm
You allow any man to be hunted, you allow every man to be hunted.
All that is required is the justification.
Comment by Downunder — Thu 3rd December 2015 @ 1:20 pm
Sex offenders ‘of either gender’ deserve whatever abhorrence society delivers unto them.
Comment by Nick — Thu 3rd December 2015 @ 1:35 pm
Nick (#5): Keep up the witch-hunting! But your emotive reaction seems to have blinded you to what was actually written. ‘Unfairness’ was not mentioned and there was no attempt to justify child sexual offences, but it’s true that the unfairness of wrongful convictions would only be compounded by Dr Yang’s bill.
Surely the public deserve to be told who the neighbourhood burglars, terrorists, drunk drivers and fraudsters are too? They could be and are right under our noses, on our streets and living next door to us. What about those who have physically harmed children in positions of responsibility? Surely any provision to prevent them from getting back into positions of responsibility would be equally justified for them?
This is an irrational and manipulative form of argument, typical of the witch hunts. “Anyone who expresses a different opinion from mine must be insane, perverted, and a witch too.” One does not need to be either insane or perverted to argue that a sex offender whose offence consisted of gentle touching should be punished less severely and treated as less dangerous than a sex offender who used violent force and caused physical pain and injury. We would agree that the latter deserves punishment more similar to that for someone who seriously injured another person through non-sexual violence. Further, we would agree that sex offenders who murder their victims deserve harsher consequences than many other murderers and many other sex offenders.
This claim is a gross generalization and exaggeration. Destroying life means killing. Some survivors of childhood sexual offending have their lives very badly wrecked, and such offending contributes significantly to some suicides. However, the effects both short and long term depend on many factors including the relationship, the intensity, invasiveness and duration of the offending, the level of threat or other violence involved, the response from others if the victim discloses, personality characteristics of the victim, etc. Many survivors get on with life and live fairly normal lives. Some accept offending that was done to them in quite a neutral way and say it hasn’t affected them especially. The word ‘survivors’ was coined to emphasize that people can go on to live well. By contrast, all victims of permanent brain damage, blindness, deafness, spinal injury and so forth through violent assault are guaranteed to have their lives badly damaged. You are entitled to your opinion that all child sex offences are worse than serious maiming through violence, and that all sex offenders should be punished more harshly than violent thugs, but we would disagree.
In addition, if one wishes to reduce sexual re-offending it’s important to think carefully about allowing those (many offenders) who are genuinely remorseful and committed to avoiding any repeat to establish viable lives in which they can meet their needs lawfully. Lynch mobs or even ongoing discrimination and alienation don’t help in that regard. As much as for any other offence, the principle of giving people a chance to rehabilitate is a positive one. However, many people seem more interested in revenge against sex offenders than protecting children.
By the way, castration has not been shown to reduce sexual offending significantly. Sexually inhibiting drugs do help reduce offending but such offending involves many and varied motivations and people still offend regardless of such approaches.
If you read carefully you may acknowledge that none of this is trying to justify or to minimize sex offending. We suggested that Courts might be given the ability to order that particular offenders not be allowed to change their names. We simply call for rational, realistic and balanced consideration of the issue. And we warn against this witch hunt that is essentially based on anti-male hysteria.
Comment by Ministry of Men's Affairs — Thu 3rd December 2015 @ 1:40 pm
Ah but it seems clear that no amount of reasonable dialogue is worthwhile with irrational witch hunters.
Comment by Ministry of Men's Affairs — Thu 3rd December 2015 @ 1:42 pm
Haha, frankly I don’t care if you see me as irrational, emotional, less intelligent than you, or even a witch.
Destroying life means killing? That’s a cop out! Living a life tainted forever by a pervert’s failure to control his sick warped deviancy *is* a life destroyed, own it. Too emotional for you – too bad! Victim’s of sexual abuse I know, regardless of their ability to move on and heal to a degree, have still had their life changed in a deeply negative manner for the remainder of it. They are strong yes, but very damaged. Your reference to ‘gentle illegal sexual touching’ is absolutely offensive and reeks of denial as to the seriousness of any sexual offending at all.
Name and shame sex offenders, never ever let them change their names, lock them up to keep our children safe, for life. And especially (thanks for enlightening me here) if castration and sexually inhibiting drugs don’t work!
Your statement “no amount of reasonable dialogue is worthwhile with irrational witch hunters” says way more about you than me.
Comment by Nick — Thu 3rd December 2015 @ 3:10 pm
Yes you’re quite right, it is a distinguishing point.
The irrational which hunter would say we must do this about what happened, because of their ingrained beliefs.
Reasonable dialogue would ask what should we do next about what happened.
The former may be stoic and easy, but it is only the latter that can bring change and improvement.
Comment by Downunder — Thu 3rd December 2015 @ 3:20 pm
Yes, well, all very enlightening, however things to do, places to be, perverts to hunt down and with pleasure castrate, so I’ll be off 🙂
Comment by Nick — Thu 3rd December 2015 @ 3:29 pm
Yes, it’s all it bit sad really.
Reminds me of that kids book; Donald, the unwanted Dinosaur.
Comment by Downunder — Thu 3rd December 2015 @ 3:38 pm
Well I have read the comments. I too consider Nick as an over the top extremist. I don’t see anything from him where he reveals any awareness of the damage done by untruthful malicious false accusations and official perjury. Let alone the harm to justice itself by the increasing fiddling with and weighting of the legislation and the courts. Our police are meant to be a neutral organisation enforcing the law without favour, but they wear and dispense white-ribbons.
I note the focus still remains on males as sex offenders, but only occasionally with a slight puff about women offenders – a desperate and cynical attempt at securing a frail claim at fair mindedness.
I’m wondering where Nick is coming from with his comments? Is Nick a victim of sex offending himself?
Its just too easy to sit and preach when its others lives at stake. That someone is accused does not make them guilty.
In another tack, I came across persuasive evidence that we actually do not have Free-will. We see this argument accepted with regards to women, an example might be a woman who killed her partner only then to claim the partner had been abusive. Too often, that is uncritically believed. That is never believed if the genders are reversed in that example.
But if there is no free-will, then people cannot be easily blamed. Instead it encourages treatment to adjust responses.
The other day a female was sent to jail for under age sex with a boy. I was somewhat encouraged that the sentence seemed perhaps equal to what a male might get. But on Morning report of the National programme, the offence was trivialised, because the boy will have liked the encounter. So am I right? on the same token some will contend its okay for a male to have sex young girl?? – yeah right!!!
Would the above female offender be on the sex offender register?? or is it just for males, convicted whether or not in fact guilty?
I and my kids know only too well the damage false allegations do, and as yet not one of those arrogant pompous folks who eagerly tried to make the lies stick has been held to account for perjury and their malice.
Its all too trendy to puff on about this topic.
I could not approve of any register; firstly because I feel that people can and do change, and secondly, many of those would be victims of malicious false allegations; and thirdly jail is the place for offenders to pay for their crimes.
And finally, there was a chap in the Wairarapa visited and brutally murdered because there was some untrue rumour that he was an offender. So there are extremists who not only feel entitled to kill on the basis of rumours, they actually do kill on the basis of rumour. So that register will endanger lives of innocents as well as the guilty. For me that makes the supporters of such a register rather unsuitable company for me.
Comment by Equality — Thu 3rd December 2015 @ 4:24 pm
Those who most loudly call for persecution of others often are defending themselves against their own identification with those they persecute.
Comment by Ministry of Men's Affairs — Thu 3rd December 2015 @ 5:49 pm
Possibly MOMA, but I think in most cases, it would be an identification with the political ‘right thing to do’ without bothering to put any energy into investigating the issue for one’s self, then drawing your own conclusions based on what one found.
It’s easy to run with the crowd, thinking you bear no responsibility for that action.
Comment by Downunder — Thu 3rd December 2015 @ 6:34 pm
Ministry of Mens affairs wrote : “Those who most loudly call for persecution of others often are defending themselves against their own identification with those they persecute”.
I recall several like that. David capill for example – Christian party politician
Comment by Equality — Thu 3rd December 2015 @ 7:05 pm
That is one possibility, and presumably what we are intended to assume.
I think MOMA’s suggestion is probably more likely:
But I reckon it is most likely that he/she gains a direct financial benefit from some kind of association with the Sex Abuse Industry. Maintaining a high level of public hysteria makes it impossible for politicians and funding organisations to refuse their appeals for $$$.
People are employed to trawl blogs looking for discussions on sex abuse to infiltrate – we might be talking with a sockpuppet.
Comment by JohnPotter — Thu 3rd December 2015 @ 7:12 pm
I agree with you Downunder. But do they ever stop to look at themselves. How unjust, harsh and viscious towards others, while ignoring their own particular challenges. And why the focus on sexual? surely its because males are more likely the offender. but I know for myself that physical and mental abuse is just as life blighting. Some may have noticed I evaporated for a while – that was because my 27 yr old damaged female abused daughter was here with me and I was busy helping patch things for her still. and her abuse and her damage has never been acknowledged or support given her, by any of those who imagine themselves to be good decent upright correct thinking moral righteous pillars of this world. She’s female, where are all those exploiting violence against women in her case? Her crime is that it wasn’t Dad harming her.
Also I admit to wondering… Why is it those who gush so much about men’s sexual violence single out women and children for their attention but without a murmur towards the other sexual irregularities – homosexuality, transvestite, trans-gender etc could all be targets for campaigns like this popular one, but who today would dare?? Thing is we all have out particular strengths and weaknesses. A weakness of those who are in loudest support of the popular campaigns is that they create more victims themselves, by not acknowledging let alone helping the victims of female violence – and yes – that violence includes sexual – and sexual against children.
Comment by Equality — Thu 3rd December 2015 @ 7:20 pm
While ‘Nick’ may not be a troll in the usual sense of that term, for me it is a kind of trolling to launch into a discussion group asserting and repeating strong, simplistic strong opinions in challenge to others’ posts without making any genuine effort to read and respond to what the others have actually said.
Comment by Man X Norton — Thu 3rd December 2015 @ 9:00 pm
Repeated assertion is something I’ve thought about before too.
Is it the reliance on a belief?
Is it just arrogantly refusing to back down?
Is it suggesting to the other person they’ve missed the point, that they have got it wrong and are not thinking?
It’s a very obvious tool in political campaigns where they hope the repeated assertion will become the obvious choice.
It’s not really a good way to promote any sort of viable discussion and reach a conclusion.
Comment by Downunder — Thu 3rd December 2015 @ 9:16 pm
But to be fair, if you took the me of 20 years ago, and threw that person into this discussion, I could just have easily been Nick.
Discussion is not always an easy thing, especially when it confronts your ideals.
What I tend to do with repeated assertion is throw back one point of difference at a time. A different one each time the assertion is repeated.
If a discussion doesn’t result from that, well so be it.
But at least that isn’t an argument, and the other person has one, two, maybe more little snippets of information that have been thrown at them, and will possibly reflect on later.
I figure that is still a positive outcome.
Comment by Downunder — Thu 3rd December 2015 @ 9:51 pm
As a young man I was an independent witness to a horrific crime scene. A child, a girl, murdered and sexually abused, by a trusted relative. An unimaginable atrocity, the likes of which I have never seen depicted elsewhere since. It was an incomprehensible sight and a shock to encounter the possibilities of such human behaviour. The case was managed and the family and the public shielded from the extent of the offending.
It was my first encounter with anything of this nature. It became and still is a vivid memory, which I pray is never repeated anywhere in this world.
At the time it created an intense response toward any perception of this criminal behaviour. I could have put a bullet through his head without hesitation. I would have voted for the death penalty for sex offenders. I was as hostile as Nick above.
That hostility was obviously provoked by the circumstances, it had never existed in me prior to the occasion.
Yet today as you see above, I have a completely different point of view. I quote myself
That comes about from my experiences with life, my experiences with Feminism, society, my desire to keep an informed mind, to learn and understand the politics and nature of life.
At the time I refer to above, I simply did not have the maturity, the life skills, the open mind, to process what I encountered, nor did I receive any help, in dealing with what I can say now was a traumatic experience. I also did not know how to engage anyone in a conversation about that, or who one might ask about something like this, I simply carried on, and maintained a hostile point of view equal to Nicks.
I actually think it’s a bit arrogant to speculate what exactly might create someone’s point of view, and I don’t like the way Nick is being labelled.
That is hunting the man.
That like repeated assertion is not constructive in a debate.
A similar thing happened to me the other day we I received a comment saying my opinion was not what MENZ is about.
Well, what is it about?
This week on MENZ has brought up a lot to chew over, but Merry Xmas to you all anyway.
Comment by Downunder — Fri 4th December 2015 @ 6:56 am
There’s a lot of comments here so mine may not even get read.
I wish I knew more and perhaps someone can enlighten me.
“Why are they enforcing police video tapes simply to get the children counselling?”
Comment by julie — Sun 6th December 2015 @ 11:22 pm
One more thing, “Y’know how it’s not fair on either side,… well, in the court itself (at the moment), they turn on single mothers and say they are deliberately using the children to stop access, etc for their fathers”.
We know that can happen and does happen but we also know it is not always. It is damaging to be falsely accused AND damaging to be called a liar and not believed when telling the truth.
……….
I am starting to question whether we, as a society, are unable to figure a way forward instead of “feminists versus masculists’ and vice versa? I am wondering if we can balance or even want to balance? We are not evolving much, imo, while I am sure we are smart enough to get this right.
………….
By the way, I could be wrong about the enforcement of video taping. I had a case involving grandparents who already took the children because of sexual abuse. CYFS threatened saying, “If you don’t do the video tape, we will take your children” – but we found another way. The main thing was the children got counselling but it’s difficult to get counselling outside of groups enforcing the videotapes.
I was told it was compulsory from a very recent case, that wasn’t mine and involved a school social worker.
Comment by julie — Mon 7th December 2015 @ 12:06 am