Is the fear of Paedophilia preventing positive male role models?

smash

Piliger wrote: »

Pot ... Kettle ... Black. :rolleyes:

I notice how you have nothing to add regarding the rest of my post. You're clutching at strays by trying to dismiss it with that comment.

iptba

smash wrote: »

iptba wrote:

If we move away from the word hysteria, probably the more accurate or interesting question to ask is whether what happened is the only or optimal way of doing things, or whether a better way would be possible. Are you saying you think they dealt with it in the only or best way available?

I never said anything of the sort and I don't know how you could possible have come to that conclusion.

It wasn't clear to me what you thought in this case, so I gave you the opportunity to clarify.

smash wrote: »

I think it's a complete farce.

Why do you think "a complete farce" happened? i.e. I'm not challenging your description of it, but what do you think caused the professionals to act in this manner.

Piliger

smash wrote: »

I notice how you have nothing to add regarding the rest of my post. You're clutching at strays by trying to dismiss it with that comment.

Wrong. I simply chose t deal with one statement and respond in the way it deserves. I may or may not chose to respond to your other statements in due course. You don't get to chose.

smash

iptba wrote: »

Why do you think "a complete farce" happened? i.e. I'm not challenging your description of it, but what do you think caused the professionals to act in this manner.

Nobody is going to know what caused them to act like that. They did not do their job, they ignored witness accounts and held him without evidence. What they did would be illegal in most countries. But you can not blame it on hysteria. Especially when so many people said he did nothing inappropriate.

Pawwed Rig

Has anyone got more information/other sources about this case? Something is not right there so I am wondering if we have heard the full story. I have tried searches but without the mans name it is difficult.

I did find one source that said upto 8 people complained about him.

smash

The story here is a lot more clear: http://www.stuff.co.nz/nelson-mail/news/7903081/Loving-dads-year-of-torment

iptba

smash wrote: »

Nobody is going to know what caused them to act like that. They did not do their job, they ignored witness accounts and held him without evidence. What they did would be illegal in most countries. But you can not blame it on hysteria. Especially when so many people said he did nothing inappropriate.

Well, you haven't given any reason why it was done. Whether the word "hysteria" or not is used, it seems quite possible this happened because now police and social services (and the public in their own way) don't want to be seen to miss cases of child sexual abuse, so have gone to an extreme and so defendants aren't given the benefit of the doubt as much as in other cases, with lesser standards of evidence causing problems for them.

ETA: I've just read the article. It seems it may be the witnesses that may have talked among themselves.

Judge Behrens decided to discharge the father based on the inadequacy of the evidence that pointed to the girl named in the charges.

The judge said: "There is a distinct danger in this case that the Crown witnesses were somewhat carried away, perhaps, by what someone believed they saw, and possibly there was an infection that ran through the people there.

"And I do say that, because it is possibly unfair that the accused leaves the court in a sense, some might say, with having got away with it simply because the Crown could not prove who the girl was. I just make the comment that I do not think that is the case, that I think generally there is some doubt anyway about the other evidence, but I underline the fact that I do not make my decision on that view. I make my decision based on the inadequacy of the evidence that points to [the girl] as being the - what would normally be called - the complainant."

He said the allegation had been a nonsense. "It's unbelievable that gossip can have such power and these people did not investigate properly or stop to have a wee think."

The man, who has no previous convictions other than two traffic offences, says he doesn't want others to go through such a horrible experience. He believes there needs to be a more inquisitorial process initially, before police lay charges.

"It has such a big impact, not just on the accused but their families and everyone around them, and they need to take a balanced look."

He believes the adversarial system does not work in these types of cases.

"Once they lay charges the process goes into place and the steamroller does not stop, and there is nobody to take a balanced, logical view and for common sense."

The Corinthian

smash wrote: »

That's complete rubbish. It happens every day with rape cases, assault cases etc and it's not because of hysteria.

Not true, I'm afraid. Unless you can show us some cases where the alleged victim of a rape or assault has testified that no such crime took place, but the police continued to pursue it.

The fact of the case in question is that the claim was dismissed and then 3 months later he was arrested and held for 20 months without evidence. This is nothing to do with hysteria.

Again that's not entirely true though. Unless there was a personal vendetta at play, some form of motivation would have been required for the police to so vehemently overreact.

It has been demonstrated in this thread (through both personal accounts and documented incidences) that there now increasingly exists a culture that can be described as hysterical with regards to the perception of men around children. Cases, such as the NZ one, may be on the extreme edge of this, but without any other motivation, one must conclude that a significant, if not primary, influence that allows such cases to occur must be this emergent culture.

Your extremest views are ludicrous and your attempt to drag down other people's opinions is nothing but petty.

How are my views extremist? I have stated that this hysteria unfortunately exists, it is increasingly causing men to step away from any involvement with children, it is harmful to both the rights of men and the development of children and needs to be dealt with.

If by extremist you mean that I object to at least some of the arguments given by both you and bwalsh, then you're making a pretty cheap shot, designed to discredit the poster and not the post (I'd report it, but I doubt anything would be done about it).

bwalsh, in particular, has at this stage fully admitted that he believes that gender based discrimination is justified. Your approach has been more mercurial, but nonetheless you have repeatedly attempted to dismiss the existence of this hysteria and have on a number of times gone to suggest that such paranoia is a good thing as it keeps parents "on their toes" (reflecting a 'softer' version of bwalsh's position).

What your actual position is, is a bit confused from what I can make out. On one side you claim to support an improvement in the current culture of hysteria and greater involvement by men in children's lives. On the other side you largely dismiss the existence of this hysteria in the first place and seem to accept this fear as a necessary evil.

Whether this is because you've not put forward your position in a manner that can be understood by me and others, or because you're actively attempting to obfuscate it or simply have a conflicted position on this issue I don't know. But objecting to some of the things you've said does not make me an 'extremist' and attempting to label me as such as frankly a rather blatant ad hominem.

smash

iptba wrote: »

Well, you haven't given any reason why it was done.

Because I don't know the case, as does anyone else who's commenting.

iptba wrote: »

Whether the word "hysteria" or not is used, it seems quite possible this happened because now police and social services (and the public in their own way) don't want to be seen to miss cases of child sexual abuse, so have gone to an extreme and so defendants aren't given the benefit of the doubt as much as in other cases, with lesser standards of evidence causing problems for them.

Child protection has to be taken seriously. If an allegation is made then it must be acted upon, which it was. The reason for them going back 3 months later is beyond me unless they spent that time interviewing the other witnesses who claimed he was being inappropriate.

iptba wrote: »

ETA: I've just read the article. It seems it may be the witnesses that may have talked among themselves.

They should have got their story straight then. A number of people made the reports, yet they had conflicting stories. It doesn't sound like hysteria, but it certainly sounds like they wanted this guy arrested. I don't think the facts of the case will ever be made public so there is no point in any kind of speculation really, no matter what side of the fence you're on.

iptba

smash wrote: »

iptba wrote:

Whether the word "hysteria" or not is used, it seems quite possible this happened because now police and social services (and the public in their own way) don't want to be seen to miss cases of child sexual abuse, so have gone to an extreme and so defendants aren't given the benefit of the doubt as much as in other cases, with lesser standards of evidence causing problems for them.

Child protection has to be taken seriously. If an allegation is made then it must be acted upon, which it was. The reason for them going back 3 months later is beyond me unless they spent that time interviewing the other witnesses who claimed he was being inappropriate.


They should have got their story straight then. A number of people made the reports, yet they had conflicting stories. It doesn't sound like hysteria, but it certainly sounds like they wanted this guy arrested. I don't think the facts of the case will ever be made public so there is no point in any kind of speculation really, no matter what side of the fence you're on.

I think the issue of false reports and the subsequent laying of serious allegations also needs to be taken seriously, just as false calls of rape (mentioned by you earlier: http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=81607947&postcount=385) should be taken seriously (in rape cases, there should be serious penalties rather than raps on the knuckle in cases where a clearly false allegation has been made).

I remember in the UK, social workers lost their jobs for missing cases of child abuse. How many lose their jobs for involving themselves in false claims? I think the system may be set up so professionals main concern is to not miss any cases, but if this means they "overdiagnose", that is not something that is seen as a big problem to their careers.

smash

The Corinthian wrote: »

Not true, I'm afraid. Unless you can show us some cases where the alleged victim of a rape or assault has testified that no such crime took place, but the police continued to pursue it.

It happens all the time in domestic abuse cases that the victim refuses to make statements or admit any wrong doing.

The Corinthian wrote: »

Again that's not entirely true though. Unless there was a personal vendetta at play, some form of motivation would have been required for the police to so vehemently overreact.

After reading the 2nd link do you think they were wrong to investigate? There were numerous reports! Of course it was wrong to lock him up for 20 months, but they did have to investigate it. After all it has been said so many times that most abuse happens by a family member.

The Corinthian wrote: »

It has been demonstrated in this thread (through both personal accounts and documented incidences) that there now increasingly exists a culture that can be described as hysterical with regards to the perception of men around children. Cases, such as the NZ one, may be on the extreme edge of this, but without any other motivation, one must conclude that a significant, if not primary, influence that allows such cases to occur must be this emergent culture.

As I said already, it had to be investigated given the number of reports.

The Corinthian wrote: »

How are my views extremist? I have stated that this hysteria unfortunately exists, it is increasingly causing men to step away from any involvement with children, it is harmful to both the rights of men and the development of children and needs to be dealt with.

And I agreed with most of the points made in the thread. I say extremist because you have a with or against me attitude where you must be 100% right all the time.

The Corinthian wrote: »

If by extremist you mean that I object to at least some of the arguments given by both you and bwalsh, then you're making a pretty cheap shot, designed to discredit the poster and not the post (I'd report it, but I doubt anything would be done about it).

You did not just object, you argued repeatedly to the point of basically telling myself and others that are points are null and void because they're different to yours, even though we mostly agree with you.

The Corinthian wrote: »

What your actual position is, is a bit confused from what I can make out. On one side you claim to support an improvement in the current culture of hysteria and greater involvement by men in children's lives. On the other side you largely dismiss the existence of this hysteria in the first place and seem to accept this fear as a necessary evil.

I think until such time that there are proper deterrents for such activity, it is not going to get better in our society. Parents do need to be aware of dangers but they can do it without openly accusing people of being sexual predators. This is where emotions come into play, people get defensive and emotions are hard to control...

smash

iptba wrote: »

I think the issue of false reports and the subsequent laying of serious allegations also needs to be taken seriously, just as false calls of rape (mentioned by you earlier: http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=81607947&postcount=385) should be taken seriously (in rape cases, there should be serious penalties rather than raps on the knuckle in cases where a clearly false allegation has been made).

I remember in the UK, social workers lost their jobs for missing cases of child abuse. How many lose their jobs for involving themselves in false claims? I think the system may be set up so professionals main concern is to not miss any cases, but if this means they "overdiagnose", that is not something that is seen as a big problem to their careers.

Didn't the 2nd article mention that the detective is going to be investigated in some way over this?

EDIT: sorry that wasn't said.

I do agree though that false accusations must be dealt with by harsh punishment.

The Corinthian

smash wrote: »

It happens all the time in domestic abuse cases that the victim refuses to make statements or admit any wrong doing.

And the police will lock the (not actually) accused up? How often does that happen?

Indeed, I'm not sure to make of what you're insinuating; because some domestic abuse victims refuse to accuse their partners, ergo all are suspect until proven innocent - and that this should be the presumption also in alleged child abuse cases too.

After reading the 2nd link do you think they were wrong to investigate?

I never suggested they were wrong to investigate, but what they ultimately did went well beyond that and it is clear that it was this very hysteria, from the 'witnesses' present, that you appear to deny exists in the first place, that started the ball rolling on this tragedy.

And I agreed with most of the points made in the thread. I say extremist because you have a with or against me attitude where you must be 100% right all the time.

That's completely false. We don't have to agree on everything, but if we disagree on what are pretty fundamental points, then would you prefer to simply agree with you for fear of being branded an extremist?

Indeed, suggesting that this hysteria (which apparently is imaginary) is a necessary evil is probably as fundamental as you can get in this discussion. If we accept that, then we might as well close the thread and accept that men cannot have contact with kids.

You did not just object, you argued repeatedly to the point of basically telling myself and others that are points are null and void because they're different to yours, even though we mostly agree with you.

No I repeatedly rebutted only those two positions that you appear to hold using arguments. The only people who've used dismissal have been you and bwalsh, who in the end finally admitted to supporting gender discrimination.

I think until such time that there are proper deterrents for such activity, it is not going to get better in our society. Parents do need to be aware of dangers but they can do it without openly accusing people of being sexual predators. This is where emotions come into play, people get defensive and emotions are hard to control...

The necessary evil argument again? I disagree with that, or that it is simply a question of 'proper deterrents' (what 'proper deterrents' are there for such a compulsion?).

This is a fundamental point of difference between us, in that I strongly believe that it will cause far more harm than good in the long run, both to men and to the children you claim such hysteria will protect. But apparently, the necessary evil is a better solution to an actual one...

smash

I never once said I support gender discrimination, it's a conclusion you've come to by yourself. I think the following sums up 90%+ of what you've stated above.

Zulu

smash wrote: »

I never once said I support gender discrimination,...

He didn't say you did, he said bwalsh did.

walshb

The Corinthian wrote: »

bwalsh, in particular, has at this stage fully admitted that he believes that gender based discrimination is justified. ).

.

Yes, but on a case by case basis. It's a personal view. I agree with some and disagree with others. It's not an exact science. We don't work like that. I simply can see the case and points and reasons for certain gender discrimination. That should not mean that I am "all for it" no matter what the scenario or situation.

Floppybits

The case of what happened to that Father in NZ in horrendous and what is even worse is that he has not been really cleared of the accusations, his case has just been discharged and secondly due to this case he only has 1 supervised visit with his kids. Unreal.

The case in NZ highlights the real fear out there amongst men that they can be accused or suspected of paedophilia by being in a certain place at a certain time, by doing something natural like being an affectionate father or helping a distressed kid out. I know a guy in the club I play for who collects his kids from school and he said the looks he got when he started doing it from the other parents because he was waiting outside the school at the time the kids were coming out made him feel very uncomfortable and that he was doing something wrong and all he was doing was collecting his kids from school.

You may not want to believe it or you may want to simply ignore it but there is a feeling (I wont use hysteria) out there that all men a peadophiles and due to this men are pulling back from getting involved in activities such as sports because of it and it is wrong. My own wife has warned me of it, in another part of this thread a lads mother warned him of making sure that he didn't get himself in a position of being accused of something and there are plenty more examples throughout the thread that we all cant be just imagining this.

smash

Zulu wrote: »

He didn't say you did, he said bwalsh did.

Can you read? He said "The only people who've used dismissal have been you and bwalsh, who in the end finally admitted to supporting gender discrimination."

The Corinthian

smash wrote: »

I never once said I support gender discrimination, it's a conclusion you've come to by yourself.

Actually, if you read my last few posts, I only pointed out that bwalsh has admitted to this, not you. I clearly stated that from what I can make out your position is that "you have repeatedly attempted to dismiss the existence of this hysteria and have on a number of times gone to suggest that such paranoia is a good thing as it keeps parents "on their toes"".

I think the following sums up 90%+ of what you've stated above.

Oh look, another personal attack to distract from the man behind the curtain...

walshb wrote: »

Yes, but on a case by case basis. It's a personal view. I agree with some and disagree with others. It's not an exact science. We don't work like that. I simply can see the case and points and reasons for certain gender discrimination. That should not mean that I am "all for it" no matter what the scenario or situation.

Bit like suggesting that racism is justified on a 'case by case basis'. Would you agree? If not, why not?

smash wrote: »

Can you read? He said "The only people who've used dismissal have been you and bwalsh, who in the end finally admitted to supporting gender discrimination."

Indeed, you and bwash have both employed dismissal of the existence of hysteria as an issue. The "who" in the second part of the sentence clearly only refers to bwalsh as he has been more open about his prejudices - at least up until your recent post, when you too admitted to discrimination being justified in principle.

You'll find this is what that sentence means in English. My apologies if this was not clear to you.

walshb

The Corinthian wrote: »

Bit like suggesting that racism is justified on a 'case by case basis'. Would you agree? If not, why not?

.

No. I am anti racism full stop. No ifs or buts. Why are things so black and white here?

I gave examples where I think that gender discrimination is/was justified. I never said in all scenarios I support it. Some scenarios I do not support. Males paying higher for car insurance was one area that I supported, or agreed that the discrimination was justified.

Where society/commerce/business etc can definitively show and prove that one gender differs significantly, or clearly to the other gender, and that due to this difference there will be a discrimination applied, then I am not against that discrimination in general.

Does this make me a bad/cruel/immoral person? I think not.

smash

walshb wrote: »

Why are things so black and white here?

Because if you're not with them 100% then you're against them. Sure he's even taking an image reference as a personal attack now... :rolleyes:

The Corinthian

walshb wrote: »

No. I am anti racism full stop. No ifs or buts. Why are things so black and white here?

Because prejudice based upon generalization of an entire group is a pretty black and white issue in civilized society.

Where society/commerce/business etc can definitively show and prove that one gender differs significantly, or clearly to the other gender, and that due to this difference there will be a discrimination applied, then I am not against that discrimination in general.

Problem with that is that there are plenty of instances one can apply that logic to discriminate against women too, in business and society in general. Is that justified? Should women of child baring age be discriminated against when applying for a job? Identical logic there.

Indeed, why is gender discrimination in certain circumstances good, but racial discrimination in certain circumstances bad? One can easily cite statistics that African-Americans are significantly more likely to commit crimes, for example, should be treat them all as likely criminals as a result? Or is that bad only because the label of racist is too uncomfortable for you?

This is the problem with your logic; it's deeply flawed and simply based upon cases you feel are justified versus others where the same logic would allow prejudice that you feel is not justified and anyone with a modicum of sense would have to stop and ask themselves if what they believe actually adds up.

Does this make me a bad/cruel/immoral person? I think not.

The word you're looking for is bigot.

smash wrote: »

Because if you're not with them 100% then you're against them. Sure he's even taking an image reference as a personal attack now... :rolleyes:

I've repeatedly pointed out that no one is trying to force you to agree 100% with anyone. But if you disagree on a fundamental point, what do you expect? Not that you even bothered to acknowledge this, clearly preferring your own narrative.

Are you just going to continue claiming that you've been accused of things that I've not accused you of and generally being dismissive at this stage?

walshb

The Corinthian wrote: »

The word you're looking for is bigot.

?

You need to really verse yourself on this term. Don't be so loose with it.

smash

The Corinthian wrote: »

One can easily cite statistics that African-Americans are significantly more likely to commit crimes, for example, should be treat them all as likely criminals as a result? Or is that bad only because the label of racist is too uncomfortable for you?

Those statistics can be quite easily changed to replace the words "African-Americans" with "People from run down areas" and the stats still match up. After all you can forget the fact they're black and look at the fact that the crimes are happening in run down areas or by people from these areas. It's not race specific unless you make it.

So now lets look again at the fact that most cases of paedophilia or molestation have a male perpetrator. Forget hysteria for a minute and look at that fact and try and replace the word "male" with something that's not gender specific.

Zulu

smash wrote: »

Can you read?

Well considering I took to understanding the post as it was meant, yes. Of course this begs the question: can you read?

iptba

smash wrote: »

Those statistics can be quite easily changed to replace the words "African-Americans" with "People from run down areas" and the stats still match up. After all you can forget the fact they're black and look at the fact that the crimes are happening in run down areas or by people from these areas. It's not race specific unless you make it.

So now lets look again at the fact that most cases of paedophilia or molestation have a male perpetrator. Forget hysteria for a minute and look at that fact and try and replace the word "male" with something that's not gender specific.

I actually made the point early about the prison population: does this mean it would be ok to discriminate against people from run down areas?

walshb

smash wrote: »

So now lets look again at the fact that most cases of paedophilia or molestation have a male perpetrator. Forget hysteria for a minute and look at that fact and try and replace the word "male" with something that's not gender specific.

This is it in a nutshell. And folks find it odd that society will be more alert and grilling when it comes to males working with children? I think it's only logical that males will be and should be more scrutinised. Me being a male doesn't change my view. For my view I am labeled a bigot. The world is a big bigot!

iptba

walshb wrote: »

I gave examples where I think that gender discrimination is/was justified. I never said in all scenarios I support it. Some scenarios I do not support. Males paying higher for car insurance was one area that I supported, or agreed that the discrimination was justified.

Would you be happy if women had to pay more insurance for other types of insurance? e.g. health insurance.

walshb

iptba wrote: »

Would you be happy if women had to pay more insurance for other types of insurance? e.g. health insurance.

I was going to comment on this.

I agree with gender discrimination and age discrimination when it comes to health insurance. It is buisness after all. They do it not to cause offence, but to make their business profitable. That is life.

Before I get labeled a racist. Here's a scenario. If it is/was shown that white people are/were more susceptible to dying from heart and cancer illness as opposed to black people then I would have no issue with a discrimination as regards health insurance. And, swap the colours and I too would have no issue.

iptba

walshb wrote: »

I was going to comment on this.

I agree with gender discrimination and age discrimination when it comes to health insurance. It is buisness after all. They do it not to cause offence, but to make their business profitable. That is life.

Except men never got cheaper rates here, as far as I know.