Wrongeds’ rights should trump wrong doer’s

Protecting victims and keeping their identities secret is often used as the reason for suppressing the names of criminals.

But what happens if the victims don’t want the name suppressed, even if it means disclosing who they are?

Two Christchurch women who were sexually abused as children will next week go to court and fight to have their name suppression lifted.

The sisters believe their abuser is using suppression orders to protect himself.

Nearly two decades after he was convicted and four decades after the abuse the women – now grandmothers at 48 and 52 – are going back to court to try and have their own name suppression lifted in the hope it’ll help expose him.

They believe he’s using the suppression to protect himself and want to warn parents.

“I could basically be arrested if I was to speak my name out, that’s how dumb it is,” one of the women says.

Both were shocked when news broke he was taking the Sensible Sentencing Trust to court for naming and shaming him on its offender website.

The director of human rights proceedings is now taking action in the Human Rights Review Tribunal on the man’s behalf, funded by the taxpayer, for the alleged privacy breach. . .

I don’t know what the law says but if it doesn’t allow the victims to be identified when they want to be, it should be changed.

Suppression in this case appears to be adding insult to the injury they received.

They are the wronged not the wrong-doers and if there is a conflict between their rights and those of the offender, theirs should trump his.

17 Responses to Wrongeds’ rights should trump wrong doer’s

  1. Andrei says:

    Another ugly story – a man whose vile and despicable actions destroyed the innocence of the young and two women who cannot get over it and move on even though it was more than forty years ago and are now seemingly allowing it to poison their life in the present.

    What to do?


  2. Brendan says:

    Perhaps the two victims would find it easier to move on if our criminal justice system wouldn’t attack them if they talked about their experiences, or even say their names in public. And perhaps they’d find it easier to move on if their attacker wasn’t trying to relitigate his past.


  3. Andrei says:

    You know Brendon, most people have things in their childhood that shouldn’t be –

    I have some childhood scars, my siblings do too and they are bad but nothing compared to those that might have been carried by my parents, my mother in particular.

    And all around me the people I know, it is the same – there is some bad that has to be dealt with, some sexual (which is the fashionable childhood horror in these sexually obsessed times and some other things equally disturbing or worse)

    I am sickened by the story above, really sickened, I reacted to it by posting what I posted on today’s general debate thread below.

    But truly what is to be gained for anybody by replaying what is now ancient history over and over?


  4. TraceyS says:

    If you recognise that many people have been abused as children, then why are you so hard on solo Mum’s on benefits? A great many of these women (and their men) will have suffered one form of abuse or another and it will affect their ability, as adults, to sustain normal family relationships. You have written some truly offensive comments in the past to which I have not reacted, mainly out of shock, but also the desire to understand you a little better. I think I do now. That is what is to be gained by discussing “ancient history”.


  5. Andrei says:

    then why are you so hard on solo Mum’s on benefits

    I’m not, I’m no beneficiary basher. I lament GOVERNMENT POLICIES that encourage young women to go onto benefits and GOVERNMENT POLICIES that encourage reward family breakdown.

    The truth is Tracey that children growing up with their biological FATHER and their biological MOTHER, are far less likely by many orders of magnitude to suffer abuse, sexual or physical and if something evil does from some external source disrupt their childhood innocence they are far more likely to cope with it and overcome the trauma without long term effect. Sometimes the evil does come from within, from close kin and that is unforgivable but it is also extremely rare.

    This is not rocket science it is the wisdom of ages backed up by millennia of experience


  6. TraceyS says:

    Your memory is short, perhaps even selective, Andrei.


  7. Andrei says:

    Your memory is short, perhaps even selective, Andrei.

    You show me where I have ever lashed out at people for being on the benefit – that’s a Whaleoil thing or perhaps a DPF thing

    But see Rodney Hyde today in the SST

    A total of 76,000 New Zealanders were born in 1993. About 6000 were subsequently abused or neglected; 3000 became known to the Youth Justice system by the age of 17; and 41,000 – more than half – spent time in a household dependent on a main benefit such as the dole or DPB.

    The benefit-supported children were six times more likely to be abused than those who were not benefit-supported. And they were 14 times more likely to be known to Youth Justice.

    Those in households benefit-dependent for nine or more years were 13 times more likely to be abused and 29 times more likely to be known to Youth Justice.

    Spending less than a year in a benefit-dependent household didn’t increase the likelihood of abuse but doubled the chance of trouble with the law.

    Now what I have said, over and over again that we have a political and cultural problem that we are to cowardly to state, it is not being on a benefit per se that is the cause of these pathologies, it is the lack of a responsible paternal figure in these dysfunctional families.

    You accuse me of being offensive but when screeching feminists go on about “patriarchal males” and marriage being a “patriarchal institution” I get offended perhaps.

    Yes I am a “patriarchal male” and what that actually means is that I support(ed) my children and I protected them from predators, I worked all the hours that God sent for the best years of my life to keep a roof over their heads, their bellies full and to provide them the education that will set them in good stead for life.

    And all the while living in a degraded, actually depraved culture that worships sexual hedonism, mocks fatherhood, mocks decency, and undermines parental authority particularly male parental authority every chance it gets.

    And by the looks of it it has worked OK – all that effort and sacrifice that is, I now have one son-in-law and soon will have another – no DPB for my girls, no brushes with the law, no drugs, no student loans hanging over their heads, good jobs doing useful things and God willing lots of children in the near future, supported by their husbands “patriarchal males” though they may be.

    I support and promote my way of being in the world because I think it works out best for all and if that offends you tough shit


  8. TraceyS says:

    I am glad your way of being has worked out well for you. And sad that it has not worked out well for many others who have tried and failed.


  9. Andrei says:

    You just don’t get it, do you Tracey

    For people like us Tracey there are no options marriage is sacred and inviolable once married there is no way out and it comes with duties and responsibilities

    GO YOUR OWN WAY: Individuality is injected into weddings more and more – here’s the gothic wedding.

    That says so much.

    When Prince William married Kate they wanted the traditional Anglican marriage ceremony – it contains these words

    I, N. take thee, N. to my wedded wife, to have and to hold from this day forward, for better, for worse; for richer, for poorer; in sickness and in health; to love and to cherish, till death us do part, according to God’s holy law; and thereto I give thee my troth.

    Then shall they loose their hands; and the woman, with her right hand taking the man by his right hand, shall likewise say after the Priest,

    I, N. take thee, N. to my wedded husband, to have and to hold from this day forward, for better, for worse ; for richer, for poorer ; in sickness and in health; to love and to cherish, till death us do part, according to God’s holy law; and thereto I give thee my troth.

    That is serious stuff which is why a self absorbed, self indulgent people might prefer “gothic weddings” I suppose. Lots of fun but no real commitment to the boring dreary shit like Duties and Responsibilities

    Such weddings mean squat, superficial ceremonies for superficial people but the consequences for us all are that it is highly likely that sooner or later all of us will to take financial responsibility for the fruit of such unions because the entire point of marriage has been glided over and missed


  10. Andrei says:

    Just to show how radical the change has been in the past fifty years Tracey from the New Zealand Yearbook

    The numbers of dependent children in each of the three groups in 1961 were: dependent on married men, 802,711, dependent on widowers, 4,932; and dependent on widows, 13,716; a total of 821,359 dependent children out of a 1961 census total of 840,443 children under 16 years of age. The difference is accounted for mainly by the exclusion of children whose parents were legally separated; those whose parents were divorced and had not remarried; children who had lost both parents; and ex-nuptial children (the last two classes excluding cases of adoption).

    So in the pre DPB days and when divorce was hard to get and shameful 95% of all children in New Zealand were being raised in two parent households and of those who weren’t half were in single parent households through the misfortune of having the death of a parent.

    And kids being beaten to death by the whanau was unknown, though there were very occasional cases of infanticide.

    Was it paradise 50 years ago? No, but are people today happier than their forebears of those times? I suspect not given the number of prescriptions written for anti depressants in our more enlightened times


  11. TraceyS says:

    There is no doubt that marriage is hard Andrei. I would be lying if I said it has been easy for me (or my husband). It requires strength. This could be spiritual, but there are also other sources of strength in this world.

    People who have been abused as children often find it very hard to engage in stable relationships. I do think we need to be able to forgive them for not being able to get it right. And help them find the strength they need to make it work even if it takes time.


  12. Andrei says:

    People who have been abused as children often find it very hard to engage in stable relationships. I do think we need to be able to forgive them for not being able to get it right. And help them find the strength they need to make it work even if it takes time.

    Tracey, Tracey, Tracey – children model on the significant adults in their life. It is not a matter of forgiving people for screwing up, it is a matter of nurturing the social structures that keep the number of children being raised in abusive environments to a minimum not providing perverse incentives that lead to more children being raised in pathological situations – which is what we have been doing for the past forty years.

    Never mind trying to explain this to someone who doubtlessly thinks that a woman who abandons her husband, the father of her children, because she thinks having sex with another woman more to her taste and helps to get the law changed to accommodate her desire to “marry” the object of her sexual desires is probably fallen too far down the rabbit hole to grasp the concepts of sacrificial love and fidelity and why this benefits children and society as a whole. Even if this ideal is not 100% achievable which of course it is not


  13. TraceyS says:

    I agree that the incentives are wrong. Our understanding of what incentives do to people is flawed. This is the subject of my research.


  14. Andrei says:

    Our understanding of what incentives do to people is flawed.

    Our understanding? Now here’s a incentive I’d approve adopting here – do I need to explain this or does it speak for itself?


  15. TraceyS says:

    Can you please explain. In English please.


  16. Andrei says:

    This is a news story from last month about a family from Kursk who were awarded the honor of Order of Parental Glory presented in the Kremlin by Vladimir Putin. Vladimir Vladimirovich also gave them the tea set you see in the clip as a personal gift

    They have seven kids, five boys, two girls, age range 25-14 The oldest two boys are married, one just recently and their first grandchild, a girl has just been born.

    Families like this are held in high esteem by the Government and this is a way of being in the world that is being actively promoted because it produces good, productive future citizens for the Nation


  17. TraceyS says:

    Thanks. That is a good thing to celebrate.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

<span>%d</span> bloggers like this: