My Photo
Mobilise this Blog





New Zealand Conservative


AmCam News Tips

  • Have you got mobile camera pix of breaking news, or a first-hand account you've written?
    email Investigate now on publicity [at] and we'll get you online
Blog powered by Typepad

« Equal opportunities laws are an oxymoron | Main | Brian Tamaki's Christian statement »



Well, what can you expect from the man who raged everywhere about police corruption, but failed to prove his case? Yes an, you've found another windmill to tilt at.

Simply because ONE member of the ACLU is charged does not mean that all ACLU members are corrupt, does it?

Does every revelation of a pedophle priest mean all priests are pediphiles?

Am I a pederast because I was once a Scout leader, and we all know that there have been a couple of bad apples in that bunch.

You disapprove of homosexuality, but does that make you a poofter basher?

I feel so sorry for you, seeing the world as such a scary place.

I care not that a single person "of the Left" is facing these charges, I still stand for civil liberties and individual choice.

Psycho Milt

Yes, people who want to defend our liberty are clearly "freaks."

Not to mention - fair cop guv! After all, you'd never find chaps like this in a church group...


"Fox News' Bill O'Reilly called it a "horrifying" case. And he noted that the two "biggest left-wing outfits in the country – the New York Times and NBC News – ignored the story entirely." CBS News, CNN and most of the big city liberal newspapers also failed to cover the Rust-Tierney arrest, Fox said."

Oh my dear God... there is an obvious connection with his position in the ACLU, his policy pushes and his corrupt behaviour.

Remember Graham Capill was in effect advocating that some kiddies actually like sex and that its not always bad. Shortly after, a whole Hornets nest was uncovered. The media was not shy in covering THAT issue.

As for me, I'd be happy just for coverage of the facts so I can make up my own mind. Can't the media please just do that much?

John Boy

The issue is F and PM - would you leave your children alone with this guy? Yes or no?

Liberty is fine but abusing kids doesn't sound like liberty for them. There has to be a line somewhere and this guy crossed it.

I agree uasbikes in that his position is a concern in that he could be seen as having an undesirable personal agenda that affected his desired outcomes.

If he was a priest the left wing press would have made a meal of it no doubt. They are defending the disgusting, pricks.


Its not a question of saying all ACLU folks are like that - just as its true that not all Christian leaders are like that.

Its a question of the hypocrisy that comes along from some members of the libertarian side who portray themselves and their ideology as squeaky clean.


I don't understand that purely on "receiving child pornography and another count of possessing child pornography" that he could face a prison sentence of 11 to 14 years on each charge. That is getting towards life imprisonment duration here in NZ.

If the above is the case
What would be the penalty for filming this pornography or selling it? 30 years?

Also there is no indication that his WWW surfing had an adverse effect on his young charges.

The Graham Capill case was in a different category, involving PHYSICAL abuse of the very young. He publicly railed against the very activities he was involved in. Hypocritical.

However in this American case, someone was advocating no censorship on Internet and taking advantage of the degree of acces that he had. Consistent at least.


I see two broken men, alienated from God, becoming devils...

John Boy

Peter, the reason that he faces a lengthy jail term is that the US, irrespective of all the bull shit that comes from there, thinks children are generally to be protected (unless they bomb them in places like Iraq) rather than expolited. No kiddie sex tours in the US as far as I'm aware.

paul Litterick

The Freedom from Religion Foundations's newspaper has a section called Black Collar Crime which has pages and pages of priests convicted of sex crimes in every edition. Does usabikes see broken men, alienated from God, becoming devils?


The point of this post is that this civil liberties person was instrumental in policy decisions and his motives have every right to be questioned in light of this information.

Outlining differences between him and Capill is hardly the path to justification or vindication of his actions either.

Children are constantly being exposed to inappropriate information, through many mediums. It isn't unreasonable to require some standards to restrict XXX content properly.

As a society, we've managed to accept the film classification system. Putting some thought into internet access for youth needn't be the "anti-freedom" specter the libertarians need to fear.


As much of the hysteria over child porn in the States is ridiculous I will wait to see what it was he actually did and if there was an actual victim...


The anomaly is self-evident. The gaol sentence is out of all proportion to the offences.

In fact the gaol sentence is the means by which extreme right wing Christian fundamentalists are able to wring their hands, and say "ain't it awful".

How do we know that this guy was not investigating child pornography?


Yeah, just so there's no confusion I used the phrase "child rape" not because I'm levelling that specific allegation but because I think the phrase "child porn" gives this rubbish semantic legitimacy which it doesn't deserve.

Somewhere, a child was raped in order to provide the imagery etc.


There is a clear difference between carrying out child rape and watching child porn.

A murderer gets a longer gaol sentence than an accomplice or (as in this case) an onlooker.

The semantic liberties are in fact being taken by yourself Ian. Anyone can see the truth however.


"The Freedom from Religion Foundations's newspaper has a section called Black Collar Crime which has pages and pages of priests convicted of sex crimes in every edition. Does usabikes see broken men, alienated from God, becoming devils?"


Actually in this day and age with computer graphics etc you don't actually need a real child to be violated to create child porn....which raises the question...if there's no victim is there a crime? Is looking at computer graphic images of a virtual act as bad as the actual act committed in real life? And what if it confirms studies already done that show that access to child porn actually reduces the committal of real violations on children by offering a "low cost release" option to those so inclined? Making kids safer in other words? The can of worms opened....

And blow your minds on some stage in the future androids or robots will be created that are so life like that they will be indistinguishable from real humans in looks at least.How soon before someone creates a child version that is bought by a paedophile for sex....and what will the rest of us think? Is there a crime? How so with no actual victim? Sci fi mind melter eh ?

Just throwing this out there to see who bites...


Peter, overly apologetic methinks. You are comparing jail terms between NZ and America, and not with other American crimes.

The sellers may well be facing tougher sentences - I note that law changes are in progress to allow child victims to sue the photographers and distributors later in life. If a priest can be sued successfully for 11.5 million for HIRING someone that abused children (as in the recent case you linked to), just imagine how much the victims will get directly from the culprit!

But these sentences and fines are deliberately high - the US is sending a message that buying such material is just as bad as making it, and the way to end the distribution is to make sure there are no sellers.

The same theory works for things like curbing the trade in endangered species. Anti-fur campaigns reduced the demand and fur trade in endangered animals fell off. If the buyers were prosecuted as well as the sellers, there would be a lot less elephant feet (used as rubbish bins for God's sake!) available for sale.

And you mentioned "How do we know that this guy was not investigating child pornography?" - For goodness sake, you sound desperate. That's why he gets a trial Peter. He stands accused, and we are discussing the penalty. The judge and jury will determine his innocence.


oops ... and the way to end the distribution is to make sure there are no (buyers as well as) sellers.


I'll bite James - there are victims - it is the damage done to the fabric of society by condoning patently immoral acts.

As we grow up, our parents and communities have an aim to develop children into people that care about others.

Promoting, supporting and condoning acts of torture, abuse and depravity is against the community's self-interest and also fails in our collective responsibility to try to make this world a better place.

Such hedonism does have its victims, starting with the individual who harms themselves as much as the community he needs to live in.

The saying "no man is an island" is the one flaw in the whole philosophy that as long as no-one gets hurt, what can it hurt to develop a person as a sick pervert.

And the one aim of the libertarian is to allow any kind of perversion, providing that no-one is hurt, because moral judgment is seen as a greater evil.

I agree that there are downsides to not following moral relativism, and I welcome the libertarian perspective to bring some balance to the dangers of intolerance. But I don't buy that no other person gets hurt even in the scenario you outline above.

Psycho Milt

James, one day when you've grown up, left school and have children of your own, hopefully you'll learn there's more to human evil than an interesting moral debate. I also hope you'll only have to learn this on an intellectual level, rather than through bitter experience.

The comments to this entry are closed.