22

S.H.A.M.E launched

by Whaleoil on January 19, 2010

SHAME | Suppression Helps Abusers Make ExcusesSHAME | Suppression Helps Abusers Make Excuses

Today we launch SHAME.

We are fortunate to be supported by Michael Laws and John Banks, plus many others.

SHAME has been established for two main reasons.

  1. To Provide a Lobby Group to enable changes to our Name Suppression laws that make our court system more open to scrutiny and at the same time better protect victims.
  2. To assist with Fundraising for Whaleoil’s legal defence against the 5 charges he faces for breaching name suppression

We belive that the ONLY solution to our suppression laws, lies not with the Law Commission report currently with the Minister of Justice, but rather a simplification removing name suppression for all except for victims and to add the suppression of the nature of the relationship between the offender and the victim.

This is know as the Capill Precedent where the Judge in place Name Suppression in the case of Graham Capill a prominent christian politician. The Judge suppressed all details of the victim including the victim and refused name suppression for the offender.

People are n’t interested in the lurid details of the victim they are interested in the names of offenders. If something becomes a secret then people want to know that secret. Open-ness is the only solution.

This law is going to be changed, let’s make sure it is changed the right way.

SHAME can be found at:

http://www.shame.co.nz

@endsuppression on Twitter

Facebook Page

Tagged: •

Related posts

  • http://intensedebate.com/people/peterwn peterwn

    Should the prospective victim of an attempted crime (or subject of a conspiracy to commit a crime) be able to seek name suppression? The Court of Appeal some years ago ruled that there was no legal provision for such name suppression if such a person is required to give evidence.

    I am thinking of the attempted kidnapping case in 2002 where the offenders made an underground 'coffin' to hold the victim which was found by a council employee. The victim (who could afford it) fought tooth and nail for suppression without success.

  • Support SHAME

    I support whaleoil & SHAME! Name suppression for 48-hours which is automatically lifted. Victims & their families also have the right to name suppression afterall, they're the 'victim'!

  • DONKEY

    great idea – well overdue, but i hope it is a little more effective than the sensible sentencing trust – i suspect whale you will be much more proactive at it than they are as you have a better forum that is now most definately growing – good luck today

  • Seán

    Just saw the "Breakfast" interview thanks to the TVNZ website. Great effort Whale, you are becoming quite polished at this sort of thing now. Keep up the good work.

  • http://www.facebook.com/tahkyn Gary Fox

    Good stuff, I just joined the S.H.A.M.E Faebook page. It is common sense to name the offender and suppress the details of the victim (ie, not disclosing the relationship between offender and victim) I will help in any way I can.

  • jannajj

    Great idea. There is a groundswell of support. Well done.

  • Mike D

    Good one! it is time for a change. Keep up the good work.

  • Bah

    WHALE:

    Judging by your intimate knowledge of what the victims want, and your opinion of how non-suppression in cases of children aged under 16 and related to the abuser doesn't work. One can only assume that you were indeed sexually abused by a family member when you were a child.

    If you weren't, WHO THE FUCK ARE YOU TO SPEAK FOR THOSE WHO HAVE BEEN?

    • http://www.cadlow.co.nz Spanish Bride

      He speaks for himself and if it isn't what the public want then he will fail in his bid to change the law.
      He won't fail. The law WILL be changed.The victims WILL be better protected.
      Your logic is flawed. My children have not been sexually abused yet I can well imagine how I would feel if they were. Does that mean I have no moral right to express an opinion or to try to change a law that I disagee with related to name supression of the accused kiddy fiddlers?
      Do I have to have been abused myself to hold a strong view? Of course not.

      • Bah

        can you please elaborate on how victims will be better protected?

        and under a system based on a blanket no Suppression rule, Can you tell me how, those who have been wrongly accused will be better protected?

    • Chris

      Dear Bah, Everyone has got a good excuse, in my case a teacher beat the crap out of me as a kid, daily. With a crafted leather weapon, at the lovely St Heliers Primary School. She is now dead and I will never forget her. No one went to her funeral, she does not have a grave. What I have not done is let her rule my world.

      I take it from your objection, that you wish for victims TO NOT be allowed name supression. Ironic then that you do not use your name.

      They call the past, the past, for a very good reason. Let it stay there, and live in the now. This too will pass.

      • Bah

        I'm not sure how you can gather that i wish for victims TO NOT be allowed name suppression from my post?

        There is a very good reason that Children under the age of 16 and related to the abuser are given name suppression. There is a huge amount of shame involved with the victims of sexual abuse. Children are not well equipped to deal with these strong emotions, and having the name of your abuser and the facts of the case played out in the media can be incredibly hard to deal with. Yes, i was abused as a child… not by a family member, but someone that was easily identified as being in 'my circle'. It was immediately assumed by my friends that i was involved so i was thus identified as being a victim and had to endure the snide remarks, jokes, people talking behind my back… the whole time the trial took place. This caused me a great deal of pain and shame, that as a 14 year old, i couldn't handle. I contemplated suicide, but eventually had to run away from the place i grew up and called home.

        I do NOT agree with name suppression for those who are found guilty. But as a victim i most wholeheartedly agree with the current law surrounding minors… a law that Whale, after flip flopping on the whole issue, now wants changed.

        • Mokita

          Bah, I am curious whether the person who abused you was given name suppression, and whether you thinh the majority of child-victims are of like mind. Do you think that social attitudes have shifted toward support of the victim (ie are snide comments now less likely) since your experiences?

          • Bah

            no, my abuser was not given name suppression, i can only think it was because they were not related to me. I was very young at the time so can't exactly remember why this was the case.

            I can't speak for all victims, but from my experience it is extremely traumatic, and i can only guess that it is the same for most who go through this. To have it played out in the newspapers and tv while at such a young age just exposed me to more pain.

            As i was only 14 and had to deal with this for the rest of my time at school, i would say no, social attitudes of kids probably has not changed.

          • Mokita

            Thanks for your insights.

        • http://intensedebate.com/people/Whaleoil Whaleoil

          What you have just described proves the current law doesn't work.

          Name suporession of the nature of the relationship would stop that in large measures

          • Bah

            the nature of the relationship was suppressed, naming of the offender made it easy to identify me as a victim

  • crabby

    Awesome work Cam, Simply Awesome!

    @bah, go eat a sausage

  • Jadis

    Bah – Cam has also had a number of victims of sexual abuse or rape contact him directly. Most of them do not want to make theirs the public face of this issue – aside from Lisa Lewis who has been very brave in providing a victims account of suppression issues.

    Cam never said he was speaking for victims… I think he is speaking for a change to name suppression – something that could affect all of us. Many victims of crime will be pleased there is another voice for them… and Cam's is a very loud voice at that.

    Bah, if you have a different view, perhaps from a victim's point of view, why not provide it rather than attack someone who is trying to make good (albeit in a different way than many of us would choose to)?

    • Bah

      please see above

  • J Mex

    Saw your interview on Breakfast WO. I actually thought that you acquitted yourself very well and thought it was good that you acknowledged that you didn't really start this whole thing with a principled stand but it has evolved into one. It was a good performance.

    Now is when the rubber meets the road though. You get to find out how many new posters on here really mean what they say and will contribute to your fund, and how many are on here just to rant about commies and find out the dirt on who did what to whom.

    In my experience, 'rabid righties' are as tight with their wallets as 'pinko lefties' and both are waiting for someone else to pick up the tab. Usually, the more someone rants on the interweb about something, the less inclined they are to give a dollar. I think that non political's are usually the most generous. Same with disaster giving.

  • Graeme

    I was/am a sexual abuse surivor, 55 yearsold, male and a parent. If someone touched my kids I would want them named.

    I have had to live with the horror and shame of this for over 45 years.

    Yes there is shame involved, only in the last couple of years have I had help, and that is through family and friends.

    Name the bastards