Posts by Katharine Moody
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
Up Front: Fringe of Darkness, in reply to Emma Hart,
I guess, I just don’t find him very interesting.
Well herein lie a problem. "Interesting" - think what you mean by that.
-
Up Front: Fringe of Darkness, in reply to TracyMac,
Most of the victims are still alive, for one, and deserve to be heard, if they wish to speak.
I don’t disagree that those wanting to be heard should give voice their sorrows, hurts, anguish, anger, trauma etc.if they feel that might assist their own healing. I think there are many venues to do this already – I think somewhere above in this thread that Rosemary linked to one such blog site where other vicitms of child sexual abuse have told their story.
The question for me is in the form of telling Centrepoint’s full story for general media consumption and attempting as a journalist to bring a balanced perspective to what was essentially one preditor’s vehicle for practise. The opening line of the article is a case in point:
As a reporter, I wanted to explore how a utopian dream could turn into a collective nightmare and normal people end up as convicted paedophiles.
Really? Does the reporter fully believe that Bert Potter wasn’t a paedophile when setting up the commune and that others eventually convicted weren’t always paedophiles but rather were “normal” people? What evidence was gathered to come to this conclusion?
So, “the story” to me starts out on a false premise – or at least one which is unproven (and to me, objectionable). But, that is journalism – it isn’t academic study – so no criticism intended, it is just what it is.
The problem I have with this journalistic approach – as emerged in this thread – is that side of the story that was/might have been seen to be ‘beneficial’ for some (positive references to wanting to know more about a sexual technique commonly used in the community, for example). I imagine any number of individuals who were illegally sexualised by this organisation who are still alive today feel, not only un-traumatised, but more sexually fulfilled in later life as a result. Some of them might even have grown into paedophiles as well, with urges/tendencies that they either look to fulfill or attempt to repress.
I just don’t think those traumatised need to hear these “positive” stories (and the outside opinions of those of us reading this public account). And in fact I imagine hearing them may only worsens the struggle for some. They might ask, why was I affected differently – there must be something wrong with me.
But by all means victims who want to should be able to tell their story – as per the Massey study – for the purposes of social learning (as opposed to wider media/public consumption). Hence, the emphasis I spoke of with respect to the involvement of clinicians and academics/criminologists if such an account is to be comprehensively told. I’m not saying the author/journalist should abandon the project, rather that the evidence gained through interviews should be used for a re-framed project/study – a collaboration with specialists/professionals in the field of child sexual abuse.
As for the perpetrators and enablers telling their side of “the story”? To my mind, their only platform should be the courts. Many convicted could likely be tried on new charges, and why not.
-
Up Front: Fringe of Darkness, in reply to TracyMac,
We all know of women who are utterly in thrall to their appalling partners (it’s not gender-exclusive, of course), and they can engage in aiding, minimising, normalizing, participating in and covering up vile acts.
I'm a bit uneasy with this notion of "utterly in thrall"? I interpret that as you think the reason some mothers expose their children to these dangers (which is a different thing to being/becoming an enabler, but part of a continuum), has all/most to do with their own needs/desires for intimacy in a relationship? That of course is the type of conclusion one could come to when just reading the court reporting on these crimes and asking ' where was the mother in all of this'? But I wonder whether it is that black and white. I guess I believe that the in-built/natural nurturing and protectiveness qualities of the female of our species exists in every woman/mother - and that that quality it is interrupted/undermined (one could use many terms here) for many, many different reasons that we just do not have a good grasp on presently. It is an area where I think far more research is needed.
Given there are so many cases where a mother is not the abuser but who is physically present in her child/children's life at the time that trauma/harm occurs, I do think we need to understand far better the reasons why these mothers failed to recognise/act/etc. to protect their child/children. We can then give all young adults and new parents the best and most appropriate knowledge and strategies with the aim of far better prevention of child abuse going forward.
-
Polity: Canada voted, in reply to Kumara Republic,
Yep, I know a few (thankfully more overseas than here).
-
Hard News: Judicial caprice is no way to…, in reply to Rosemary McDonald,
Great news.
-
Third, for most of the year and across almost all issues, the Liberals have pitched themselves as centrist. Look at their platform, titled “A New Plan for a Strong Middle Class.” The main policy sections are squarely aimed at middle income earners, especially those with kids.
It's a good campaign slogan. But not so sure that pitching at the middle class is all that centrist a position these days - perhaps more left than centrist given how the middle class (or the existence of a class of what it used to be like financially to be in the middle class) is shrinking so rapidly. The expression middle class (although still common parlance) is more accurately described as the working poor class in this day and age. My assessment of it is that a large group are lurching more left than left of centre when it comes to voting.
Elizabeth Warren did a great lecture on it (The coming collapse of the middle class) - with some really excellent research data of hers out of the US discussed;
-
Up Front: Fringe of Darkness, in reply to Kyle MacDonald,
But she has a very questionable moral and professional background.
And I found this quote from the SST article interesting:
(Goodyear-Smith was charged with perjury in 1992; she writes that she was acquitted.)
http://www.stuff.co.nz/sunday-star-times/features/4069062/Conflicting-interests
Use of parentheses theirs.
-
Up Front: Fringe of Darkness, in reply to Russell Brown,
-
Up Front: Fringe of Darkness, in reply to Kyle MacDonald,
Yes it was a great piece of journalism. Extremely informative. Congrats to SST for running with it. So glad it had the effect it did wrt ACC involvement. Yes, the use of social media sites to discredit/slander scientists, academics and other professionals is a disturbing and scary issue for those who experience it.
-
Up Front: Fringe of Darkness, in reply to Kyle MacDonald,
FGS was involved for some time with the ACC Sensitive Claims process, or at least in the attempts to destroy it
I’d only had a vague recollection of the name Centrepoint or Bert Potter when I read this thread – so googled for a better background and one of the things I came across was this article;
http://www.stuff.co.nz/sunday-star-times/features/4069062/Conflicting-interests
And thought OMG, OMG, OMG – and it gave me one more reason to despise this National government executive even more. Appointments/contacts for folks with real or perceived conflicts of interest can’t get much worse than that one. I believe the threshold in law, when you are at the decision-making end of a regulatory process – is perceived conflict of interest (in other words a very low threshold), so to my mind, legally, she should likely never have been given the contract being married (or even in a relationship) with a convicted offender. Regardless of her qualification.