Why no Victim Protection in this case?

The liberal crim huggers have been crying about victim protection as the reason for name suppression. TV3 also used some shrill liberal tart to explain exactly that the other night on the story about me.

The problem is that their argument is fallacious and fails on an examination of the facts. Today we have yet another example of the inconsistency of the courts.

An Auckland methodist minister has been charged with a sex offence against a teenage youth.

Kenneth Smith appeared in Rotorua District Court this morning accused of indecently assaulting the 17-year-old boy at a motel on January 10.

Sex Crime, victim, no name suppression. Perhaps the victim decided to waive name suppression. But here is the point. The very argument that people will go digging into the details of the victim is pure bollocks. here we have a lurid case of a Minister of a Church indecently assault a bloke. Now you can’t get more shameful than that and yet there isn’t any name suppression.

BUT and here is the kicker for the liberal panty-waists concerned about victim protection. The NZPA did exactly what any reporter would do. The didn’t mention the details of the teenager other than to describe him as that. But we all know who the creepy, disgusting Minister is. In actual fact you’d have to say the victim is far more protected than if the Minister had got name suppression because the story isn’t about a secret anymore. It is about a creep who took advantage of a position of trust.

Noone is going to go looking for the details of the victim, because we don’t care to know such details, we just want to know who the abuser is.

  • Peterkar

    Something that characterises you and your followers is that your reasoning – governed as it must be by your command of the language – is inadequate because you are all sub-literates.

    The essential point in law is that everyone is innocent until proven ('found', if you like) guilty. I'm surprised at you. This is principle to which I would expect you to adhere.

    By the way, this preoccupation with guns is starting to trouble me. Please don't burst into your kids' school and start spraying bullets everywhere – the fact that you're a psychological fuck-up could mean that it's likely.

    • caleb

      your a nice person.

      • EmTee

        your

      • Peterkar

        I think you mean "you're"

  • The Banker

    WO best post yet, all the best with your campaign , have you arranged a paypal account yet for your legal costs? I am wanting to make a contribution to the cause

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

      Yes we will, have a big announcement on Tuesday.

  • bah

    you really have no idea of the laws do you. Not sure how you can be 'campaigning' against them if you don't even know what your campaigning against.

    victim not under the age of 16.
    Victim not related to person charged.

    When you get a f*cking clue, then people will start to take you seriously.

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

      You dipshit, It is you that isn't getting it. My point is there is a victim, it is a sex crime, and suddenly the victim isn't protected…so what happened to victim protection.

      The other point you have missed is that even though the victims details aren't suppressed they have reported the details kind of proving that the law for protection of the victim isn't needed.

      I don't support total removal of suppression, I actually think the Capill solution is the best one.

      • bah

        The suppression laws are there to protect the victim from being identified. How the hell can you identify the victim from the details reported in this case? you can't… it could be any 17 year old kid. therefore there is no need for the suppression

        • Bah Tat

          If a man is accused of sexually abusing his child, it could be reported the man was accused of sexually abusing A child, without having to suppress the name of the accused. Details of the relationship between the accused and the victim could be suppressed to protect the victim. This would make more sense to me because it then means less chance of the accused being able to abuse someone else while waiting for the case to be decided.

          • bah

            i don't think you can be charged with 'abusing A child'… usually it is 'a minor under the age of 16'. If that man has a child under the age of 16, then it doesn't take much to jump to the conclusion that is is his child.

            for the record, i am against name suppression for celebrities IF they are found guilty. But i think the Law as it stands works to protect victims of sexual abuse such as in the case of the nelson MP

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

            here here that makes sense!

          • pdubyah

            'bah' – Define "celebrity, and does being an MP make you one?

          • Bah

            someone who is famously recognised in culture or society.

            yes, being an MP means you are recognised in culture or society.

            My above statement applies to the cases where we have sportspeople or entertainers getting suppression even after being found guilty. this is wrong.

          • J Mex

            Name a couple of cases

          • Bah

            all black convicted of spousal abuse (about 4 years ago???)- name suppressed

            Entertainer recently found guilty (and named on this site) of sexual abuse – name suppressed

      • progger

        STOP MISSING THE POINT ON PURPOSE!!!

        Bah's point, as you very well know, is that the victim wasn't related to the accused, and wasn't under 16, which is where the law automatically provides name suppression.

        > The very argu­ment that peo­ple will go dig­ging into the
        > details of the vic­tim is pure bol­locks.

        What about when people automatically know who the victim is, without digging, because for example the reported details identify the perpetrator (Bob Bastard), and the victim's relationship to the perp (son, daughter), and they know one and/or the other. Kid goes back to school after holidays, for e.g.. Guess what all the other kids are gonna be talking about. And worse.

        > Noone is going to go look­ing for the details of the vic­tim,
        > because we don’t care to know such details,

        Speak for yourself. I'm not. You're not. But some people are.

        IF you want to argue that suppression should automatically be extended to 17 yr-olds, or where the victim is in a non-familial but nonetheless close relationship with the perp (e.g. church minister, scout troop, employer, and so on) then WHY DON'T YOU JUST SAY SO?

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

          You must be the stupidest person on the planet, not only unable to read but a strange inability to type as well, you keep slipping into all caps.

          I have said repeatedly that the best solution is the Capill case. Suppress the victim and the relationship. End of issues. Then when they go back to school no problem. You seem unable to read the other posts I have written saying exactly that. You clearly are blind and you Dragon naturally Speaking software is on the blink.

          Guess what about kids, they are arseholes with out fail. They will tease and bully for almost anything, hair, spots, clothes, sports ability, even your name. You should try the being the son of a National party President.when at school, even the fucking teachers bully you. Then even when you are 41 years old and haven't lived at home since you were 18 the fucktards of the left still go on about it. But guess what it happens, its called life, you liberal tossers seem to want to be able to wrap everyone in cotton wool so they get to 18 and arrive a perfectly formed \”adult\” who has never had so much as a skinned knee or a stubbed toe.

          It might be a good idea to suppress victims details and relationship to the accused at least temporarily, it may actually help in trials involving gangs to have those details kept out of the way at least until after the trial. The point is you twats seem to think the law is working perfectly. It isn't and the fact I am getting huge support proces this, whilst I get just few tossers like you whoi do nothing but attack me as a person rather than debate the actual issue which is what is needed.

          Now if you can't keep a civil tongue in your head at my place and keep raising your voice I'll have to stop listening or interacting because I won't be shouted at.

          • wha?

            can you write a more contradictory reply to a post next time. thanks.

            again, it all seems to be about you Cameron Slater.

            No the law isn't working perfectly, but you can't seem to decide how the law is working badly. Your reasoning changes and it appears that you are just on a massive ratings drive. Revealing the Nelson MP and thus exposing the victim was truly disgusting and you should be ashamed of yourself for that.

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

            Pious anonymous c**ts, fuck off

          • wha?

            LOL @ complaining against your own blog rules.

            don't worry, you won't have one soon.

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

            yeah right.

          • progger

            LOL @ WhaleOil

          • EmTee

            This guy is comedy gold.

  • bob

    Cameron, nou donkey. not everything is about you.

    Write your blog and state exactly what you want changed about the law, based on the clips I have collected you have very little consistency.

    Reread the comment Bah posted, and use your comprehension skills to try and understand that.

  • Murray M

    This guy is only a minister, not a precious MP or ex-MP. There is one law for us and one law for the MPs. Rife under Labour and now rife under National (Labour-Not-So-Lite) especially if you are a Maori MP.

    • progger

      LOL @ Murray M.

      It is encouraging, though, to see stupid people hating on National for being "Labour-Not-So-Lite".

    • J Mex

      Murray – You are dense. The law provides almost mandatory suppression for offenses against children (under 16). If the Ex-Mp had allegedly molested a random17 year old it is unlikely they would have name suppression.

      You people who go on about "one rule for them and one rule for us" are idiots. If YOU were charged with molesting a young relative you would almost certainly get name suppression throughout the trial as the law satnds. For their protection. Better still, people like Slater wouldn't bother to "out" you because it's not "blogworthy" and doesn't generate hits.

      Show me one person that 'Whaleoil' has outed that isn't mildly famous and I'll believe that he's doing it for principle and not publicity.

      Nope. Can't.

      • Murray M

        Bullshit, an MP will always have thier shit covered up. We still don't know what Richard fucking Worth did to get the boot do we?

        • Bah

          yeah cos that taito field guy had it pretty easy

          • Murray M

            Can't you recognise cultural insensitivity and downright racism when you see it. Cough, Cough. Field was guilty as sin, Helen and Micky tried to cover it up, but the shit stuck too fast even for those two to dislodge it. Might have been different if Labour-Not-So-Lite hadn't won the election.

          • Bah

            find a thread that your point is relevant to please.

            you claim bullshit when suggested that you would get name suppression in a similar case. You seriously have a intelligence problem there Murray… of course you would have suppression in this case… EVERYONE DOES…. COS ITS THE LAW STUPID

            Have you ever stopped to think that the only reason you are hearing about the MP's case is because he is in the public eye? Unfortunately this actually happens quite regularly, it just doesn't stir up the public/media interest that a well known figure does.

            Whether he is an MP or not is completely irrelevant, and for you to claim that its the reason for the suppression is ignorant at best, but mostly retarded

          • Murray M

            It's you that is living in la la land

          • Bah

            nice intelligent comeback as usual

          • Murray M

            You call me retarded, i say you are living in la la land. Which one is more insulting? I have a BSc, BPharm, and a BCom. Most people would concede considering my academic success that I am relatively intelligent. Just because you don't agree with my comments is no reason to insult me.

          • J Mex

            And here's me thinking those subjects are harder than Law. But you seem to be struggling with Law, Murray.

            Breakdown:

            Ordinary everyday scumbags get name suppression when charged with sexual offending against minors. Happens everyday. Papers don't report it. It's not news…. Celebrity/Ex-Mp/Sportsman gets name suppression for same offense. Papers report name suppression – Juicy story which sells papers. Idiots on internet write about how celebs/ex-mps get special treatment. Rinse. Repeat.

          • Bah

            i don't agree with your comments, because they are factually, and legally wrong… i wasn't insulting you, i was saying your reasoning on this topic is retarded.. although i'm thinking that you've maybe been dabbling in your BPharm a little too much

          • Murray M

            Fair enough Bah, I'm not a lawyer (wish I was). I no longer dabble with the BPharm, got sick of dealing with the fuckwit general public. It's BCom all the way now. Even though you are sticking to the letter of the law, you must have heard of the "old boys network".

        • J Mex

          You also don't know what the guy did who just got the boot from the business my Mrs works in. He obviously is getting special treatment as well.

  • maxx

    Let's not worry about whether or not he's guilty the witchfinder general has spoken, he must be guilty.

  • rob

    Cameron, I will check back in a week to see if your posts make any more sense than they do now….

    but your arguments are all over the place……and I wont be contributing to your defense fund, because stupidity is indefensible….

  • Titan-Uranus

    Tho, it is hardly a surprising revelation that a church minister has been buggering young boys.
    Par for the course really.

  • Steve

    Rattle his cage a bit more knuckledraggers, whales sometimes accidentely squash things when they get mad.
    It was a simple question, "Why no Victim Protection?"
    Does money and race buy name suppression?

  • Bag

    Simple Answer:

    Victim not under age of 16
    Victim not related to person charged

    pretty much what i said at the top of this page.

  • NMC

    I think you raise probably the most valid and worthwhile issue around this on-going saga to date WO.

    Though I haven't necessarily agree with everything you've been attempting to do, or how you've gone about it… though I find it strange that you're actions (noble, self-serving or otherwise) have attracted such venomous, hysterical, hate-filled and person attacks on your character from a supposedly 'educated', 'informed' and 'socially progressive' sub-sect of the NZ alternative media. I'd love to hear this same crowd get just as vocal and outraged and wound-up every time another wee kiwi toddler gets put in the drier, or hung on a clothes line, or chucked in a boiing hot bath, or has their head beaten with a baseball bat, or is smashed against a brick wall, or… you get the point. Jesus people… a little perspective… please.

    I think you're bang on with your observation that people don't want to know the name of the victim… they want to know the name of the offender, as that's the info they need to protect their own families, friends, communities and such like.

    An easy, effective and simple way to approach the legislating of this issue, would be to have the law written in a very simplistic way that's framed around the intent of something along the lines of 'The name or any identifying information of a victim of sexual crime in NZ can be named in/on any media channel or forum, public, private or otherwise… no matter what the age of the victim.'

    Having spent the early years of my career in television newsrooms both here and around the world, I can tell you in a heart beat that no journo worth their salt would dare ever publish those details. Apart form the personal morality of the act, the knowledge of the shear scale and brutality of the ensuing public savaging they would be on the end of is enough to self-police the industry itself right there… rating would immediate tank, it's a 'free full-frontal face-shot' that you've handed the opposition channel's newsroom and you'd be unemployed and unemployable in less than 24 hours. Simple.

    … sorry, just one final point that's been raised repeatedly regarding the need to protect the victim's privacy, so as to avoid shame and embarrassment at having their names made public… for god's F^%$ sake people… do we really have morons in this country who actually believe the public's interest lies with the identifying of the victim and not the perpetrator of such an horrendous act of grotesque and utter depravity on another human being… child, teenager, adult or otherwise?

    Do they seriously think a bunch of seven year old kids, after hearing of a recent attack, are going to be gripped by an uncontrollable urge to then race home from school, with nothing but the express purpose of finding out who the latest 'victim of sexual abuse case' is that the courts wont name in person. Who knows… it might be their lucky week and the victim just may be a kid from their very own school… a kid that they could then single out and tease, torment and shame the next day in the playground?

    Do these people offering this as a solid and justifiable reason for the recent liberal use 'suppression orders' in sexual abuse cases (minors or adults), even have children themselves? If they do, then what the hell have they done in their roles as parents to have raised a child that thinks in such a calculated, cruel and evil manner? I mean seriously people… get your heads out of your arses and join us back here in reality again… even for just a little a while, so the country can talk to each other with logic and reason again.

    N

    • J Mex

      NMC. Nice post. Some good points raised, but you fail to use one important word – alleged.

      "people don't want to know the name of the victim… they want to know the name of the offender, as that's the info they need to protect their own families, friends, communities and such like. "

      I don't think there is a public interest in finding out who the victim is. I also don't think there is a public interest in finding out who the alleged offender is.

      I do think there is a relevant public interest in knowing who the offender is, post conviction. The Peter Stewart case in Christchurch is a fine example. Name suppressed until conviction. Then, name released. Where the hell is the harm in that?

  • Simple andFair

    My view is that name suppression should be automatic until a person is convicted.
    Upon conviction name suppression is automatically lifted. If the accused is not
    convicted then name suppression remains in force indefinitely.

    • Mark

      I think this is a simple, logical and resonable idea and as such will be rejected by the politicians and lawmakers…make it a bit more complicated and then they'd probaly agree with it

  • Bah

    that would either make this blog irrelevant, or Whaleoil a busy and bankrupt man

    • Mascot

      No, he makes his money defrauding an insurance company by pretending to be depressed!

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

        Nice defamation there, pity I know who you are.

        • J Mex

          If only I had a dollar for every blogged empty defamation threat.

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

            I don't do threats I do promises.

          • J Mex

            I'll keep my eye out over the next couple of months then, WO, to see if you really do threats or promises,

            That's one defamation case against Mascot and one against one of the good folks at the Standard.

            Anyone laying odds? I'll take a bet on 'threats'.

  • Jiffy

    Please stop calling everyone who thinks you're wrong a (insert insulting adjective here) liberal , it makes it very clear you have a weak argument . I've read "dipshit" , "Pious anonymous c**ts" and "stupidest person on the planet" just in the responses to this blog entry .You seem more inclined to make insulting rants with very poor logic than to discuss anything like an adult . In my opinion you didn't fully consider the possible effects (on the victims) of your little crusade and are now try to reverse justify your position .

  • http://intensedebate.com/people/oswaldbastable Oswald Bastable

    What is this- whiney bitch week?

  • Inventory2

    Nice to see there's not going to be contempt charges over The (Former) National Figure

    http://keepingstock.blogspot.com/2010/01/no-harpo

  • caleb

    attack by greenpeace…

    you guys are purposly missing the point so you can annoy whaleoil.

    name suppression of certain offenders and not others is inconsistent, regardless of what name supression could be given to protect victims.

    complusary military training for you lefties.

    • Bah

      erm, missing the point?

      Whale wrote why should this case not have suppression, while the other ones do?

      And its simple, by LAW it has to. Has nothing to do with celebrity. Its law, and its there for a reason. Protection of innocent child victims.

      He's the one who is trying to equate it with the suppression rules he broke earlier… AFTER he claimed that he wouldn't address cases that involved children, he now wants to break this self imposed rule.

      He is confused with the law, and confused with his own sanctimonious crusade.

  • picnic

    new zealand's collective intelligence seems to be summed up in this page!

    one thing's for certain, the law isn't working, because there seems to be a large percentage of people not happy with it. Funnily enough, WO has forced National to come out and say there will be a review.

    Wasn't that his goal? call him what you want, but he just made progress for our country. Even if you hate the way he went about it, seems he just made more of an impact for the abused and forgotten than a lot of others ever will.

    • Mark

      I think thats whats getting up his detractors noses…the fact hes actually achieved something and not just talked about

  • pdubyah

    forgive me for being ignorant then – two issues –

    1. The issue one of the application of the law, defining under what circumstance a supression notice is applied. If i'm correct then – Adult knows victim who is under 16 – name supression is automatic.

    2. Media reports scant details, including magic word "celebrity" or "well-known" and name supression is applied, perhaps correctly per point one, but causes panty bunching.

    Isn't this then just a salacious desire for knowledge for gloating?

  • caleb

    and its a good change to see someone from his side of the fence on a sanctimonious crusade.

    the left have a monopoly there..

  • Scott

    Arguing with people on the internet is like the special olympics. Even if you win your still a retard.

    Seriously though, there should be no Suppresion laws, regardless of guilty or not. If the person is not guilty they have nothing to hide, if the person is guilty then we should know. The victim can have name suppresion but then again im sure any harrasment or tormenting would not be as bad as the actual event so they will get over it…

  • Pingback: Name suppression: Hypothetical « Ethical Martini

101%