New Zealand Travel Advisory

AdamReed's picture
Submitted by AdamReed on Mon, 2006-10-09 08:55

 

 

My wife is a chemist and pharmaceutical production executive, a few months younger than I - and I'm 60. Fortunately, thanks to her East Asian heritage, her size 2 figure, plus exercise and modern technologies (see recent New Yorker cartoon above) she looks very, very, very, very much younger - as she likes to, and as I love her to look.

I usually take some pictures of her with me when I travel - but if I were to visit New Zealand, I'll have to leave her pictures at home. In a recent interview, New Zealand Chief Censor Bill Hastings said that "It doesn't matter if the model is an adult - if she looks underage, it's considered to be objectionable." And in New Zealand, the Chief Censor's determination that a picture is "objectionable" has the force of law, and could get me kicked out or barred from the country.

Isn't censorship wonderful?


( categories: )

Adam

Lindsay Perigo's picture

There was no error in logic or principle. The lies were inescapably obvious from the moment Unbound came to light (to many of us they were already blindingly obvious). And the defamation that had occurred up to that point could have been inferred immediately.

This assumption that somehow we in NZ don't get "They came first for the creeps ..." is insulting & way out of line. You say you are seeing now more depth in my original posts on this matter than you absorbed first time round. Well, I've told you before—you're a monologuer & a very bad listener. You make a lot of bad assumptions. This one is among the worst.

Linz

Linz - OK, so you are pissed off.

AdamReed's picture

Linz - OK, so you are pissed off. At what? My pointing out an error in logic and principle - surely you can't honestly deny that it was an error in both - in another poster's message?

"In defense of the rights of a creep." They came first for the creeps, but I was not a creep, and so I didn't speak up...

Linz, I don't think I'm embarassing myself - and in any case, I don't mind embarassment if I learn something. OK, embarass me. Shown me I'm wrong, and I will sincerely thank you for improving my mind.

More seriously, I appreciate tactical discretion when the victim was not only a creep, but a creep who was objectively counterproductive, and would have been even more so if perceived as a representative of advocates of liberty your country. I'm re-reading what you wrote in the original debate, and I see a lot of depth that I missed the first time around. I hope that you will be willing to read what I plan to write about it. I may as well get blown off for something more substantive than for correcting someone's grade-school-level mistakes.

OK, Adam

Lindsay Perigo's picture

We did not take leave of our logic & principle, & by now I am more than thoroughly pissed off with your ongoing campaign against us in defence of the "rights" of a creep.

What would you have us do with the Chief Censor—assassinate him? I can assure you the Chief Censor is the least of our worries. Are we supposed to have had a Boston Tea Party over Peron, overthrown the NZ government on his account? You said some dopey things back then about something—NZ politics—you have no clue about. You claimed Winston Peters was in cahoots with Graham Capill, as I recall. Preposterous nonsense. Don't keep embarrassing yourself.

Frankly, Adam, your agenda is showing. If it shows more plainly, I'll act accordingly.

Linz

Robert - defamation

AdamReed's picture

I don't know any specifics on the defamation issue. I do know that he did not voluntarily become a non-resident of New Zealand - so "How can you sue him when he skips the country?" seems to use the verb "skip" in a highly non-standard way. It really doesn't work as an excuse for barring him from the country, on the pretext that he defamed one or more New Zealand citizens, to claim that the defamation would have been proven in court, if only suing him for defamation had not been made inconvenient by the fact that he was already barred from the country. Whatever happened to trial first, verdict afterward? Or is New Zealand really on the other side of the looking-glass?

As for the rest, I really don't know the man, never met him - and perhaps I ought to be glad that I haven't. What I don't like is people who ought to know better taking their leave of logic and principle, as you just did. I am in the process of re-reading the original thread, and I know how it happens, but I still don't understand why you guys let it "get to you" the way it does. Some kind of evil spell cast by that evil man against witnesses to his evil? Or what the Hell?

Defamation

Robert's picture

"As far as I know, no one has ever sued Peron for defamation."

How can you sue him when he skips the country? From the USA to South Africa to New Zealand to the USA to ??? You'd have to buy a round the world ticket just to serve papers on the bastard.

Also, a mutual friend, one of those evil NZ objectivists you think so little of, went into business with Peron when he first arrived. Sue him and his and you'd hurt a friend and her investiment. A lot of NZ objectivists held out the hand of friendship to Peron. Peter C even put him up at his house, as did Lindsay. I helped unpack books at his bookshop one evening.

Little did we know we were inviting the most divisive force in Libertarianism into our midst. Within five seconds of his arrival he made it known that he didn't approve of our political activism. Such was the way he began to repay our kindness.

The man is a monstrous smelly turd and I for one am glad to see the back of him.

Linz, thank you for the clarification.

AdamReed's picture

Linz - thanks. I'm very glad to have your position identified. I agree with everything except for misgivings about part 2, where you write:

"Or it could have said, "He published a pedophile magazine once & accommodated a pedophile group. Nothing there to justify our intervention. But he's lied about this since challenged about it & defamed New Zealand citizens in the process. He's here on a provisional basis, is not a New Zealand citizen. On balance, we choose to deny him any further opportunity to acquire NZ citizenship."

The lies, outside of the political context, would be disreputable. But no one, not even the publisher of filth that no decent man would touch to wipe shit off his aresehole, owes truth to those who would initiate force against him. As for having "defamed New Zealand citizens," that is a matter to be established by due process of law. As far as I know, no one has ever sued Peron for defamation. So what else is there? Citizenship is about common defense against initiation of force, not about complementing each other on virtues of character.

On the other hand, I would not voluntarily deal with the man. If enough people shunned him, he would soon become destitute. So it would be reasonable for New Zealand to require, as a condition of letting him in, that he be bonded for a return ticket.

And on the third hand, every time I read about the latest outrageous "decision" of your Chief Censor I roll my eyes about how New Zealanders tolerate such a thing. Especially when, in the current global conflict, censorship is the number-one differentiator between civilization and its enemies.

Duncan - thank you.

AdamReed's picture

Duncan: You write, "my position is that we shouldn't have a Chief Censor any more than we should have a Chief Inquisitor, and immigration status should in no way depend upon the opinion of same."

Thank you. I'm very glad that's clear. You advice to "try being more direct" is gratefully accepted. I'll try to remember it and use it. And, in any case where I am clearly pulling my punches - and not being sarcastic, or using understatement for emphasis - I shall more than welcome a reminder.

You ask, "if you retract the "applaud", what do you replace it with?"

Whatever I find evidence for. I've already located a post in which I was taken to task, by one of the participants here, for criticism of the Chief Censor. I'll post the details when I've had time for a more thorough search. My general conclusion, both from recall and from the posts I've retrieved thus far, is that the whole course of action of the New Zealand government in the Peron case was considered by some participants virtuous enough to be beyond criticism - even criticism focused on the very institutions you just wrote "we shouldn't have."

More later - I have a very demanding schedule in the next couple of days.

Context, Adam

Lindsay Perigo's picture

In the case of Peron, long before the Nambla/Unbound business became known, he'd been rejected once by immigration authorities purely & explicitly because of his libertarian views. That was clearly an outrage, & I personally prevailed on Rodney Hide, MP, to raise a stink about the matter. Which Rodney did, very effectively. Peron's second application was successful. In an ultimate sense, ironically enough, Peron probably owes it to me that he was allowed in in the first place. Much later, the Unbound/Nambla stuff came to light. The magazine was classified as indecent by the Chief Censor, & Peron, who fled the country when the scandal broke, was not allowed to re-enter. Do I approve of that? Well, I don't think there should even be a "Chief Censor." I believe everyone should be able to publish anything (except reputation-damaging lies about others). I believe everyone should be free to publish even force-adocating ideas, as long as that's where it stops. (I believe pedophilia necessarily entails the initiation of force, even when the victim "consents.") I believe all self-supporting folk who wish to come here & live without initiating force against others should, as a rule, be free to do so. Equally, however, I believe a free country is not obligated proactively to admit people who advocate its destruction, even if "advocate" is all they do. It is not obligated proactively to admit advocates of force-initiation of any kind. In the case of Peron, a hypothetical libertarian govt in NZ could validly have called it either way. It could have said, "Well, turns out he published a pedophile magazine once & accommodated a pedophile group. But he broke no legitimate laws, did not himself initiate force against anyone, is not now advocating, implicitly or explicitly, such force against children [unless you construe advocating lowering the age of consent to 12 that way]. So there's no issue here justifying government intervention." Or it could have said, "He published a pedophile magazine once & accommodated a pedophile group. Nothing there to justify our intervention. But he's lied about this since challenged about it & defamed New Zealand citizens in the process. He's here on a provisional basis, is not a New Zealand citizen. On balance, we choose to deny him any further opportunity to acquire NZ citizenship." Either position, however arguable, would be acceptable to me personally. That our actual govt barred him certainly does not cause me any heartbreak.

Linz

A weasel

Peter Cresswell's picture

Adam, you can stop your lying and insinuations, which are just a repetition of claims you've made before that were asked and answered, and made by you in the same disgusting and utterly inaccurate way you've issued other smears, such as your recent smear of a great woman whom you foully labelled a fascist.

The position of those New Zealand Objectivists that you're trying to smear again here has been clarified at your behest more than once, and your dishonest attempt to smear every Objectivist in New Zealand because you object to the deportation of a paedophile promoter from New Zealand speaks volumes.

You sir, are a weasel. A complete and irredeemable low life.

Peter Cresswell

Adam,

Duncan Bayne's picture

Adam,

I'm not reluctant, I consider the entire issue a red herring. If it'll please you any: my position is that we shouldn't have a Chief Censor any more than we should have a Chief Inquisitor, and immigration status should in no way depend upon the opinion of same.

Happy now?

Back to your statement - if you retract the "applaud", what do you replace it with?

I suspect that what you're trying to say is that you are displeased with NZ-based Objectivists for not kicking up a stink over the fact that Jim Peron was kicked out of the country, essentially at the say-so of the aforementioned Chief Censor.

The reason I use the word "suspect" is that you've been making veiled, subtle accusations rather than simply standing up & speaking (or typing) your mind.

You should try being more direct; as I'm sure you know, most SOLOists are masters of directness & are quite capable of taking it as well as dishing it out.

Duncan - retraction

AdamReed's picture

Duncan,

I retract the applaud. You are right, I should not have stated it this way without having dug up the citations ahead of time, and for this I apologize.

And I again call your attention to the overwhelming reluctance of those, who have been casting aspersions on me in this thread, to come out and clearly state their position on the issue of basing immigration actions on the Chief Censor's say-so. You included. Make of that what you will.

Adam, stop trying to weasel

Duncan Bayne's picture

Adam, stop trying to weasel out of the hole you've just dug yourself. You wrote (my emphasis):

New Zealand's "Objectivists" have been known to applaud the criminalization of speech

That's a strong accusation. Either name names, or retract & apologise.

This weaselly shit about Lindsay condemning or not condemning the statement by the Chief Censor does not address the matter, & you fucking well know it.

Linz - chapter and verse?

AdamReed's picture

Linz - OK. I will look it up in the archives when my schedule permits, probably this weekend. I regret any incorrect implicature of the current example - I wrote in reference to the relevant principles, and I remain puzzled by your continuing refusal to state (or re-state) your position on those. And, if you did already voice anything resembling disapproval of the use of the Chief Censor's say-so as a criterion in matters of immigration and travel to New Zealand, then I sincerely apologize for having missed it.

Adam

Lindsay Perigo's picture

Your accusation was:

...even New Zealand's "Objectivists" have been known to applaud the criminalization of speech - such as sexual photographs of young-looking adults - considered "objectionable" for no reason other than Christianist belief in "the sin of the eye."

Now you say:

... you never clarified your apparent approbation of the use of your country's immigration and travel restrictions on the say-so of your country's Chief Censor.

So we've gone from "applause" to "apparent approbation"? Again I say, chapter & verse please.

Joe - NO to martyrdom!

AdamReed's picture

Joe - you write, "this is coming as if someone's gearing up for martyrdom..." Of course I'm doing no such thing - one thing I'll make absolutely sure of when visiting New Zealand is that I am NOT carrying any romantically suggestive photos of any young-looking adult, even of my wife. But the even a suggestion from the NZ Chief Censor that I may need to take such precautions is objectively scandalous.

I'm confused by Adam's

JoeM's picture

I'm confused by Adam's complaint...what kind of pictures are you carrying around that would get you in hot water? Wallet sized pics of your wife don't seem such a crime... this is coming as if someone's gearing up for martyrdom...

Linz - conditional apology.

AdamReed's picture

Linz,

I join you in moral condemnation of the promotion of namblaphilia, and indeed of promotion of any kind of child abuse. I also condemn the use of immigration and travel restrictions - a form of force - to punish the mere promotion, without initiation of force, of even the most distasteful ideas qua ideas. Particularly when I am reminded by the news in the paper that the expression of my own sexuality is criminalized by the same system of censorship.

As for chapter and verse, you never clarified your apparent approbation of the use of your country's immigration and travel restrictions on the say-so of your country's Chief Censor. I hope that you will welcome this opportunity to go on record with your stand, whatever it is. You have my apology, if you do go on record in opposition to any use of non-objective law, for having doubted your position on this issue.

... even New Zealand's

Duncan Bayne's picture

... even New Zealand's "Objectivists" have been known to applaud the criminalization of speech - such as sexual photographs of young-looking adults - considered "objectionable" for no reason other than Christianist belief in "the sin of the eye."

Adam, I'd like to know who you're talking about here. Name names, if you have the balls. I'd particularly like to know whether you're referring to me.

Smearing again

Peter Cresswell's picture

"...even New Zealand's "Objectivists" have been known to applaud the criminalization of speech - such as sexual photographs of young-looking adults..."

You've done it again, haven't you Adam. Why you do it, I don't know. But you've just done it again.

As a human being you are a disgrace. As a so-called Objectivist you are disgusting.

Cheers, Peter Cresswell

Example, please!

Lindsay Perigo's picture

... even New Zealand's "Objectivists" have been known to applaud the criminalization of speech - such as sexual photographs of young-looking adults -

This is a slur in the service of Namblaphilia from someone who was a conduit for the vile Jim Peron via his equally vile mate Barbara Branden. Chapter & verse please. Adam, I put up with a lot of shit here, but this is right on the limit. You're on notice.

Linz

Robert - censorship

AdamReed's picture

Robert -

At least in the United States, child pornography prosecutions are linked to initiation of force against children. Consensual photographs of adults, young-looking or otherwise, are no more initiation of force than blasphemy of the Prophet Mohammed. Yet the prospect of Danish cartoons and the like being made illegal is rightly repulsive to free men even in New Zealand, while even New Zealand's "Objectivists" have been known to applaud the criminalization of speech - such as sexual photographs of young-looking adults - considered "objectionable" for no reason other than Christianist belief in "the sin of the eye."

As for skin, my wife is a big fan of dermabrasion. One gets a child's skin - and without teenage acne!

Censorship sucks...

Robert's picture

But some context:

(1) the age of consent in New Zealand is 16, and your wife would have to have the most amazing skin to knock more than 45 years off her appearance.

(2) The pictures would then have to be sexual in nature. The New Zealand Justice system has problems, but they aren't arresting people for having innocent pictures of their young relatives. Yes, you can enter New Zealand with pictures of your grand children without being arrested and sent to Mt Eden prison.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.