Published 1998

Geoff Leonard

5 Rosamond Street,

Hornsby, 2077

The question asked, in the Review, is where was the Wood Royal Commission coming from; at least as regards the paedophile segment of its deliberations.

But, I have to emphasize that this review is not a substitute for reading the report of that body itself; no more than a film review is a substitute for viewing the film. A copy of the report can be found in the NSW State Library.

Speaking for myself, I have been intimately bound up with the events surrounding the Commission's hearings, including having a personal acquaintance with several of the witnesses. A copy of my submission to the Commission is included in this volume.

I personally served a three and a quarter year's maximum sentence in Cooma Prison. It was my baptism of fire. I have certainly come out considerably more detached both from my own emotions and feelings and from the emotions and feelings of other people. I don't know whether or not this is an improvement to my personality - I suspect not - but it has certainly been an aid to the writing of this book. I have also brought to this task my basic studies in religious studies, philosophy, and the law. In short, I claim both the factual knowledge and the skills and attitudes necessary for writing this document; and I hope it will be a step towards true sexual liberation and the freedom to have authentic personal relationships. The present position is similar to the fabled curate's egg, good in parts; but an unwholesome morsel nevertheless. Sorry folks, freedom cannot exist with discrimination of any kind; and, without freedom, we are immoral, unfulfilled, and incomplete human beings; and I am responsible, not just for my own freedom, but for that of everybody else.

The Review weighs in to just about the same length as the original report. But you have my assurance, dear reader, that, on the subject of, it is considerably more informative. In fact, after reading it, you will know just about all there is to know about the subject. Plus, knowing something about its opponents.

Interested readers are also referred to my other publications:

Punished for Love 2^nd Ed. 25/6/1996 ISBN 0959105336

Razorwire 25/4/1996 ISBN 064627937

An Essay on Mind, Morals, and the Paedophile Scare 13/5/1997 ISBN 0959105344

Introducing Ego Concept, 24/10/98 ISBN 0959105360.

Media reports of the murder of Frank Arkell on the night of Friday 26th June 1998 have demonstrated all the hysteria and just about everything that I have described in the Review. The Sun-Herald screamed, "CHILD SEX MP SLAIN". The word "child" suggests somebody who is "innocent", very young, very helpless, very dependent, and very much in need of protection "predators", and from his own unsafe propensities - including perhaps the propensity to dump his innocence.

The "victim" wheeled on by the ABC's 7.30 Report was 17 at the time of the alleged offense; which was being plied with a "stultifying drug" - alcohol - and then raped. Let me pause for a sip of the glass of a stultifying drug on my desk. That's better, I needed that. The alleged victim has almost certainly neglected to add the qualification "statutory" to his allegation of rape. Any sex with a 17 year-old is statutory rape, even if the lad has begged for it on his hands and knees.

The paper gave revealing details about the witness. W26; who was mentioned in the report, but with any details omitted: "It was a secret witness, code named W26, who brought Arkell undone in spectacular fashion.

"Over several days he gave testimony, much of it censored, that he was seduced into the Lord Mayor's sex ring in 1973 at the age of 12 in a Wollongong public toilet. W26 named more than 100 alleged paedophiles, their associates, and the people protecting them.

"The witness, now 38 years old, had served time for armed robberies and paedophile offenses and blamed the former MP, who was educated by the Christian Brothers, for his life of crime".

So, it's those Christian Brothers. It sounds like Colin Fisk all over again. Perhaps this accounts for this information: In March last year, six months after the Royal Commission wound up, W26 went to the Fairfax owned Illawarra Mercury to ask why the NSW police had not acted on his evidence. "He was furious that Arkell and other active paedophiles were escaping prosecution

I was in gaol for the same category of offense. To get out at the expiration of my minimum term, I told the psychs and probation officer anything and everything they wanted to hear. There was no point in doing anything else. These people are arseholes, and they wouldn't know the truth if it were stuck ten inches up them. The difference between Fisk and W26 and the rest of us is that their imagination is more vivid, and they are more ruthless. Their florid stories earn for them attentive hearings from the media and such persons as Deirdre Grusovin and Franca Arena, allegedly, herself, a dab hand at spinning a good yarn. W26 completely denies any responsibility for his life and crimes; which, to my mind, reduces his credibility to zero. The Illawarra Mercury is not exactly a high-flier in the credibility stakes either. The copy of the Sun-Herald, which it was necessary for me to have in order to brought you this comment, came to me via a rubbish bin. I would have strongly resented spending a dollar on it.

I have news for these people, if they don't know it already; and that is that the so-called children can be very dangerous persons, and there have been, in recent memory, a number of murders by "children". It could quite easily be that the murderer in this instance is a "child". Get a 16 year-old with a knife; well, there has been recent legislation preventing sale of knives to persons under 18 that is to children. I would be no match for a 17 year-old, or even a reasonably active 12 year-old. It is thought that Arkell had invited his murderer into his house; which he would have more likely done if the murderer had been a "child". Being a Christian is a cover. Being a judge is a cover. Being a woman is an even better cover. And being a "child" is best of all. Once these kids get under the canopy of the doctrine of the innocence of children, held up over them by the psychs, they are almost impossible to winkle out. Arkell was probably into rent boys; who are a dangerous breed, whatever their ages may be. And they are dangerous in a variety of ways. Most of the witnesses before the Royal Commission appear to have been rent-boys. What do these rent-boys want? They seem to want the money. If they are so pure, why don't they go out and get a proper job? The politically correct thought amongst psychs is that rent-boys and prostitutes are victims of their clients. So that, when I buy a newspaper, the newsagent is my victim; and what I should do is give the person the dollar, and leave the paper on the counter? Was I to be mad enough to consult one of these psychs, what I should do is to arrive at the appointed time; hand the fee to the receptionist; and then leave. Otherwise, I would be exploiting the psych's need for money, with the power that money represents in my hands. Crazy But, that's what these people are saying. But it all has to do with this strange and pernicious doctrine of the child, which totally absolves him - deprives him - of any responsibility for his actions until he is 18 (when it suits the psychs).

From the SMH 29/6/98, "Mr. Marsden said the royal commission and Mrs. Arena's campaign had created a hysterical atmosphere towards paedophilia and homosexuality". Yes indeed, and a most wonderful example of hysteria and incitement to murder is provided by the comment of Dr. Richard Basham, published in The Daily Telegraph of 30/6/98. The doctor is described as "one of Australia's most respected criminal psychologists". He is a senior lecturer at the University of Sydney The comment deserves (if that's the word) to be quoted in full. However accurate the killer's profile turns out to be - if he is caught, a big if we can be sure of the accuracy of Basham's own profile that is revealed hereby.

"Are we dealing with a serial killer(s)? Reports of the murders of shopkeeper David JohnO'Hearn, 60, and former Wollongong mayor Frank Arkell, 67, suggest the likelihood that they were committed by the same individual, perhaps even by individuals working in concert.

"As well the nature of the Wollongong area murders offers a possible link to last December's murder of convicted paedophile Trevor John Parkin in Glebe, who was last seen in the company of a teenage male. All three murders occurred on a Friday night.

"All were executed in a style which suggests extreme, simmering hatred of the victim.

"His penis was severed and a testicle placed in the kitchen sink. "Parkin was stabbed repeatedly in the abdomen and groin, leaving him partially disemboweled. "O'Hearn was struck on the head with a blunt instrument, decapitated and his head placed in the kitchen sink. His severed hand was found on a sofa.

"In addition to abdominal mutilation, his penis is reported to have been sliced open.

"Finally, Arkell was killed by a blunt object, possibly a hammer. His face was punctured - impaled might be a more appropriate term - with his tiepin and his Rotary badge rammed into his eye.

"Although the murders vary somewhat, it must be remembered that crimes have a social quality and no two victims are likely to have the same relationship with a serial killer. Certainly, what we know points to a serial killer.

"Who might have committed these murders?

"Since they bear the hallmarks of revenge killings for paedophilia, the murderer might see himself as a victim of his victims. Most likely he feels his life was ruined by their sexual assaults upon him as a youth.

"He may have spent time in prison or even be HIV positive.

"Given the apparent absence of forced entry, however, his victims must not have realized how deeply he hated them.

"It is, of course, possible that the murderer may be exacting vengeance against men who have not harmed him specifically, but who have violated someone close to him.

"They could even be strangers whom he believes to be paedophiles who have escaped justice. However, the crimes have an intensely personal quality to them, which suggests otherwise.

"As well, the murderer seems to have engaged in quite specific vengeance, acts of against the (presumably) offending penises of Parkin and O'Hearn, against O'Hearn's severed head and Arkell's eye.

"The eye, for example, is crucial to our sense of identity (and, in English, its homophone - I is us),

"One can imagine the murderer as a lowly, powerless young man exposed to the despised and ravishing eyes of an older powerful man."

"Given the messy, tactile nature of these crimes in which the murderer must have been covered in his victims' blood, it is not surprising that he savored the moment by exacting revenge on the most despised parts of their bodies.

"Once treated as mere meat himself, he turned the tables. What is the likelihood of future murders? Very high, indeed. Once an individual has moved to this level of violence, he is unlikely to cease on his own account until he has exhausted his list of candidates for retribution. How does the perpetrator(s) justify the murders?

"If he feels his life has been ruined by the cynical actions of adult males who targeted and manipulated him as a defenseless youth, then justifying these murders is the easy part (planning and getting away without being caught being the hard part). "As well, given the apparent inability of the police, courts, and politicians to cope with the crime of paedophilia, the murderer must think that the system is corrupt and controlled by networks of powerful paedophiles".

Dr. Basham clearly hopes that the murderer will not be caught until every male who has ever had sex with another male under the age of 18 has been tortured, murdered and mutilated - perhaps hundreds of thousands. His hatred of paedophiles comes through with almost every word. He is almost certainly homophobic absolutely. The stereotypes are there; the old powerful paedophile; the weak, innocent, helpless youth. Which makes me wonder whether he has consciously ever met a paedophile; or how long ago it is since he has ever met a youth. I suspect he is a bit like those cow-cockies in the bush who vote One Nation and hate the Asians; but have never met an Asian.

1 have never heard of this psych before I read the comment, and I know nothing more of him than what is contained in the short biographical note, which accompanies it. But the comment reveals perhaps more than I care to know. Many psychs have a religious background. They have been Jesuit seminarians, and have not made the distance. It takes about fifteen years of hard study to become ordained as a Jesuit priest, and many are called, but few are chosen; and very many of those who are not chosen become professional psychologists of one kind or another. To them, sin is sex, and sex is sin. Man consists of spirit and flesh, with spirit being of God, and flesh of the devil. Sex is of the flesh. We possess a soul, which God only meets if it is pure and undefiled. An innocent child has a pure soul, which is defiled by his first sexual contact; so that a youth, which loses his virginity, has also lost that which is most precious. When a man has sex with a boy he is done something far more serious than merely injuring his body, he has injured his soul. And homosexual contact is the murder of the soul; so murdering the perpetrator is justified vengeance. It is very dear that Dr. Basham considers that Arkell's murderer is justified in doing what he did. My fear is that the effect of Basham's comment will be to give encouragement to the murderer, and to incite him and others to similar, further crimes.

In the text of my Review, I develop my theme that religion is lying at the bottom of much of the attitudes represented by the Royal Commission. Homophobia has not gone away. It has merely gone underground, to emerge again as hatred of paedophilia. Nothing's changed really, except to have got worse. How can anybody wax so enthusiastic about somebody who has done what this killer has done, I hate to say this, Basham, but I think you are horribly wrong. This guy isn't a fighter for justice, he is an evil maniac for whom the hysteria whipped up by the Royal Commission has provided an excuse and opportunity, I suggest that Justice James Wood must also bear some responsibility for these killings.

The evidence suggests the killer is a religious maniac. O'Hearn's killer wrote Satan on the wall with the victim's blood. It all seems to be a Catholic in thing. Arkell was a Catholic. We can be sure O'Hearn was. Grusovin is a Catholic. So is Arena. My impression is that virtually everybody connected with the rent-boy scene is Catholic. And that virtually everybody connected with the drug scene is Catholic. It could just be that the Catholic religion is such a hard thing to live with that something has to give. In my opinion anything, which denigrates love and sex as Catholicism does, is inherently evil, and must have evil consequences.

To my mind, the worst thing about Arkell was his hypocrisy. The Herald story on him (29/6/98) quotes him as saying, "I am not and have never been a pederast or paedophile". Further, "I have never had sexual contact with a male under 18 and never in a public toilet". But he went further, "and warming up to his theme of retribution against paedophiles, he said, 'Anyone who interferes with a young person, girl or boy, should be locked up and the key thrown away"'. How many times have we heard that? There's an answer now,'' That's what Frank Arkell said". Anyone who talks about these things in strict stereotyped language arouses my suspicion; "interferes" and "should be locked up and the key thrown away" are such stock words and phrases. And most discussion in this area, in the media especially, is in stereotyped language. I never met Arkell, but I recognize his type, and I know people like him. They are all Catholics, and they are all full of shit, I am sorry if I seem to ranting on about Catholics in this area, but it just seems to be a matter of fact. But having said this, I have to admit that anyone, charged with this category of offense, is usually well advised to deny absolutely. The criminal law has it in common with Jesuit psychology that it degrades and debases sex into being rape, I suppose this is because this area of criminal law has an ecclesiastic origin. Hence sexual charges, particularly in the paedophile field, whilst they may be true in bare form, are normally false in substance. I did have sex with a male under 18, but I did not rape him; and rape is supposedly the substance of the charge. Moreover, in our adversarial system of law (nevertheless the best system) it is customary for the DPP - Director of Public Prosecutions - to load up the charge sheet to the hilt. In the expectation that, even after the demolition job by a competent defense counsel, there will be sufficient left to send the accused to gaol, and making the exercise worthwhile. Moreover, a full trial gives the court an opportunity to lift the veil. An accused, sentenced after a guilty plea, is lucky if the judge knows anything more about the case than is written on the charge-sheet. Which lack might also possibly prejudice an appeal on severity of sentence. It is true the law provides that a guilty plea be favorably taken into consideration when passing sentence; and there was an attempt to rectify the problem of quantification by pretrial "indicator" hearings; which rather defeats the object of saving the court's time. I am not up-to-date in this matter. I pleaded guilty, because I couldn't afford to do otherwise - in spite of some of the charges being totally false, the makeweights. I was not eligible for legal aid. For what I actually did, I got a huge sentence. I got 3 ¼ years, instead of the more appropriate and equitable few hours community service, which most people (including probably the "victims") thought I would get. But my counsel knew otherwise,

In spite of its escaping the stricture on inducement (discussed in the text), because it is about public hire, and there being no dependence upon a single client, I have a strong distaste for rent-boy sex. It is immoral because it denigrates the sexual act. But I can understand its existence, as being what is left after legal oppression and Catholic guilt has done their worst.

I rarely mention women in this Review. This-is not by accident. The Royal Commission only mentioned women as a matter of form. To my knowledge, there was only one "victim" witness; the twelve-year-old, whose funny hat moved the judge to tears. Was the hat police issue?

In the strange world of the media, law and psychs, and where the power theory of the nature of sex reigns supreme, women have the role of helpless victims; ranking just above "children" in this respect. Because they are victims, women, like "children", are immune from the attentions of tile law - well, almost, there have been cases. Even in the general community, female sexuality has a low profile. Lesbians can have a strident voice; but, in general, Queen Vic's dictum that women are not like that, is still the normal opinion. It is felt that, women, being merely passive partners in the sexual act, are incapable of breaking the law; which is about the perpetrators of rape.

The second reason why I have ignored women is that I am a man, and a homosexual man, and female sexuality is wholly outside my experience. But, I have got a sexual preference theory; and I would reckon the sexuality of women pretty well mirrors that of men. And even I cannot escape from observing that women, when they get their man, are not all that passive. I could be cynical enough to say I don't think they are passive at all. I would be so bold as to say that there are just as many lesbians as gays, and that their behavior towards women is similar to that of gays towards men; and that their preference for the chickens is just as strong. In other words, for every male paedophile out there, there is also a female paedophile; but who possesses almost total immunity from the law. Because the law is such that even if it had been designed on purpose to provide that immunity, it couldn't be doing a better job. Women have just about chased men from any positions where they have contact with chickens. Scoutmasters, youth leaders, schoolteachers, they are now nearly all women. What a wonderful cover it is to be a woman Better than being a child even. I was about to say, better than being a Christian; but priests, vicars, and brothers have had a caning. David Yeldham has reduced the cover value of being a judge, whilst Frank Arkell has stained the image of politicians somewhat - at least male politicians. One can never imagine the likes of Franca Arena behaving other than absolutely correctly - at least in sexual matters. Men are bad. Women are good. It is unfortunate that good people are not as newsworthy as people who are bad; and royal commissions are not set up to investigate people who are good. Keep it up girls, ideology and image are everything. Maybe it is that you will never be found out.

But part of our troubles may be coming from precisely women's virtue. Women, who exchange intimate relationships for power, will be finding power is an awfully cold companion after the day's work is done. For men, I suggest, power tends to be sexually attractive. But, I suggest, this is not so for women; who, consequently, have to often make a choice between a successful power career and marriage. And women's awareness of their sexuality is far below that of men's, and far more women are unaware of their lesbian orientation than men are of their gayness. This could, in part, be stemming from cold women being called "virtuous". In short, there are an awful lot of bitter and twisted old maids (my mother's description) out there; and large numbers of them are to be found in psychology and the law. They are being ignored and left, whilst, at the same time, they see large numbers of men, not only preferring their own sex; but, to add insult to injury, mere kids. Inside, women are seething.

This book needs promotion. To write a book, and publish it without promotion, is to provoke the proverbial image of a man winking at a beautiful boy in the dark. This question of promotion is not only interesting in itself, but is interesting because it invokes many disturbing issues surrounding the Wood Royal Commission; about the rights of free association and free speech.

I would like to hold a series of promotion dinners at my residence; to do essentially what the notorious BLAZE which got such a bucketing in the Report, and of which I was a member, was about. Justice Wood does not mince his words on the matter. He believes that such associations should be strongly discouraged, because their effect is to legitimize what is against the laws and evil. One gets the impression that the law should never be discussed or questioned. The law is the law, is the law, is the law. He is probably thinking of the decriminalization act of 1984, which would not have been enacted if there had not been organizations and lobby groups dedicated to this end. Clearly, he is advocating a police policy, which would never again allow such a situation to develop. The lobby groups remain, but they are tame cats today, and display little interest in any further law reform. BLAZE was destroyed. Neither the media nor the relevant lobby groups raised the issue after the publication of the Report, so one can assume they are acquiescing in this attack on basic rights

In itself, the book is likely to arouse little interest. But the police will certainly be interested in any attempts to promote it. My dinners are likely to be put under surveillance. The proceedings of the Commission were revealing in showing the sophistication of the spy devices at its command. The lives of all of my guests will be subjected to intense scrutiny. There will be underage and attractive agents provocateur to seduce those not already vulnerable. There are certain to be police spies and informers planted at the dinners. I am in a very strong position personally; because I have done my time, and I have not offended since. But there would not be too many people like me. Reality forces upon me the conclusion that I will be attracting few takers; and those who do come will be being placed in a very dangerous position. Had the early gay lobby groups been placed under such a systematic attack, it is likely that they would not have survived. The enemy is the Child Protection Enforcement Agency, which is apparently the best staffed, best equipped, and best financed of all police units. Perhaps posterity will deliver a judgment on the Wood Royal Commission, as having as its worst legacy, the destruction of human rights, and the rule of law.

But, I may be greatly overestimating the efficiency of the police. In my various dealings with them after discharge from prison, mostly over damage being done to my property, I have come to the conclusion that they are good at regulation enforcement, but are out of their depth when confronted with crime. This is not a novel observation, for this was the affliction of P.C. Plod. Instead of one great big Geoffrey file, there are numerous little Geoffrey files, all separate, and uncoordinated. Even officers, on the same shift, don't know what the others are doing. However dimly, the Commission did perceive this problem, and recommended a central intelligence unit for paedophiles. So much for paedophiles, but I wonder what this lack has to do with the police's lack of success in say, the "war against drugs".

Connected with this is the police's obsession with routine and procedure; which can degenerate into just going through the motions. The effect of the Royal Commission will have been to have greatly worsened this problem, as officers concentrate on covering their arses, rather than attempting anything positive. My impression is that the Royal Commission did terrible things to their morale, and that they have developed a siege mentality.

Another one of the police's problems is the sheer ignorance that comes of their not getting out and about enough. In connection with the Arkell murder, you will find detectives who know nothing about the rent-boy scene, or the Wall, or the Fountain. What they know about paeds is what they have read in their Police Academy textbooks that have been mostly written in America out of somebody else's imagination. I will guarantee that it is common knowledge amongst the rent-boys who the killer is. And he must have left behind him enough evidence to sink the Titanic. The trouble is that if they do get out and about and mix with the crims, they become open to corrupt approaches. So that even a suggestion that they are keeping "bad company" will be making them a target for internal police investigation. Sadly, it would seem that a squeaky-clean police-service is an ineffectual police-service. The likes of the notorious late "Bumper" Farrell would have known who did the Arkell murder even before it happened.

In one way, this is bad news. I have a nasty feeling that I have met the Arkell killer myself, and could very well be meeting him again. I know I will be relieved when he is caught. On the other hand I don't have much to fear from the police unless I do something to make enemies. Once the police get to act on a definite complaint, they become very efficient, and very ruthless, indeed. Otherwise, it is a matter of not doing anything that could possibly result in an internal charge. There is a lot of huff and bluster in this area. The police will try entrapment. During my photography period, I went down to the South Coast - a photographer's wonderland. I was met on the station by a friendly youth, whilst on my way home. Obviously the setup was for me to invite him home to sit for a few photos, or something like that. So, it is a matter of commonsense, and keeping the old feller in check. In the end, my gear was stolen. But, by that time, I had realized that the only photography I could safely do was of buildings and landscapes, with nobody standing or moving around - boring!

In The Sun Herald of 28/6/98, we read: "On May 27 last year Arkell appeared in Wollongong Local Court charged with 29 sex offenses involving boys and young men between 1973 and 1984.

"These included 14 counts of indecent assault on males, five counts of buggery, eight of sexual intercourse without consent and two counts of administering a stupefying drug (alcohol) to commit an indecent assault".

1973; this is twenty five years ago; and 1984 is fourteen years ago. All the charges are under the old act, the abominable crime of buggery and all that. It's all ancient history; and ancient history was very much the flavor of nearly the entire evidence place before the paedophile segment of the Wood Royal Commission. Apparently, in those far off days, Arkell was in the business of providing boys for a brothel run by his mate Bevan, now deceased. At least, this is what is alleged. The paper is quite right in saying that, now he is dead, we will never really know. I do know something of the present-day rent-boy scene; and my impression is that they are independents working in a kind of loose association. They have arrangements with various people, like proprietors of shooting galleries - they are nearly all drug-addicts - for bagging-off purposes. My guess is that Arkell would have been a regular client. In the far-off days referred to, it was commonly understood that all gay establishments paid hush money. There was no age-of-consent in those days; something we have to continuously remind the media; and at one point, even the Royal Commission. It was this stuff that Mss Grusovin and Arena so repeatedly beat up. As somebody in the media remarked to me, most of it is hearsay, and remote hearsay at that.

"The story just referred to includes the following: "When he was committed for trial in February this year on some of these charges, Arkell was a lonely ruined old man who had become a public pariah".

Arkell had been a successful politician. Successful politicians are apt to make enemies; and Arkell had "a dark side"; which made him vulnerable. Unless a politician confines himself to doing it in the missionary position with his wife, he has a "dark-side" which makes him vulnerable. My guess is that the real motive of the charges wins to destroy Arkell, and in that they seem to have succeeded. My guess is that the Royal Commission was, amongst other reasons, set up to be a stage for a great catfight.

As for the killer; my guess is that it is a rent-boy who has used Arkell's downfall as an occasion and excuse to have a 'bit of fun". He has done it many times before, and, unless caught, will do it many times in the future. Because, this is the way he gets his fun. He chooses people like Arkell (and me even) because our deaths are unlikely to call forth much effort from the police. He likes to kill old blokes, because they don't struggle much. Would you say he is a shining white knight? No, I don't think so - unless you've got some funny values. When the killer is caught, he will be regurgitating all that Dr. Basham and his colleagues have fed him, and will be feeding him. Buckets of tears will be shed.

Richard Ackland devoted the major part of one of his Media-Watches (ABC-Television) to the reporting of the Arkell murder. Basically his reaction echoed mine. But he added information; including that Arkell was not charged with 29 offenses, as reported in the Sun-Herald, but with four; and that they involved a 17 year-old and someone in his twenties. Why didn't the Gay and Lesbian Lobby shriek about that one? As I have before observed, the charges were under the old act, and very, very old.

If this was the best that the police could come up with, it shows the case against Arkell was pretty shaky; with very likely the stuff spoken against him at the Royal Commission being mostly second hand rumor and innuendo.

The second matter dealt with by Ackland refers to Ray Chesterton's comment in the Telegraph. I will quote it in full that part quoted by Ackland:

"However violently Frank Arkell might have died on Saturday at the hands of an intruder, it was not enough, not nearly enough. We can only hope that those fleeting seconds of his putrid life were as physically painful as the mental and emotional torment he imposed on boys for a long time. There should be a separate hell for paedophiles, where the fires burn a lot hotter."

The words are criminally irresponsible; because they are a direct encouragement to the killer to do it again; and to extract even more sadistic enjoyment from it. His last remark makes me wonder whether Chesterton is, like the killer is likely to be, coming from some kind of evil religion.

On the 19th March 1998, The Sydney Morning Herald published an account of Ms Franca Arena's 5th March testimony to the New South Wales Upper House Privileges Committee. "Which is investigating her accusations of a judicial and political cover up of highly placed paedophiles", (to use the words of the SMH). David Humphries, in a comment on the report, stated:

"So that's what Franca Arena was on about. We had suspected little substance for her to be bold enough to presume a political and judicial conspiracy, covering up the identities of prominent paedophiles. But not until yesterday had we seen how threadbare its evidence was."

This comment is applicable, not just to Ms Arena, but to the Wood Royal Commission - Paedophile Segment, as a whole. The Report of the Commission, published in August 1997, is, as is Ms Arena, extremely strong in moral outrage and determination to "protect children" but is otherwise insubstantial. As an inquiry, it fails to rate; because it pointedly refused to take into account the views of anybody who did not share its view of adult male/boy sexual encounters, and indeed of all under-the-age-of-consent male/male sex. By the way, whilst the Commission was concerned to emphasize in its words that it was concerned with sex other than male/male, its actions show otherwise, and little more than lip service was given to sexual activity which included females, or was about females

Many times, I have endeavored to write a review of the Report. But I have failed, because something vital was eluding my understanding. What exactly was it that the Royal Commission was on about? So, a male over 18 has sex with a male under 18; why should this event be causing the heavens to be falling down? Indeed, why this offense, merely because of the age factor, should be categorized as a serious crime, and generally attracts head sentences (sentences including possible parole period) of over three years, even where there are no "priors" (previous convictions).

Then it was that a long article by Mr. David Marr in The Sydney Morning Herald of Saturday 20/3/98, on the history of the struggles: surrounding and leading up to the legal decriminalization of homosexuality, elective from July 1984, triggered a certain train of thought. What the establishment believed in those days, and still largely believes, is that homosexuality is a contagious disease; which afflicts males. The "establishment", by the way, is a collective term applied to the leaders of the community; more especially those concerned with forming its opinions and making its laws, and including institutions like the mainstream Christian churches. It seems that it does not "see" lesbianism, and has only a blurry image of female sexuality in general. "Good" women do their duty on the marriage bed, but have little interest in sex otherwise. Even in "advanced" politically correct circles, just about the only sexual role a woman can play is that of a victim.

Homosexual males are thought to be able to infect other males, even against their will. This fear comes out in the so-called "panic defense"; which, in NSW law, is a defense against a conviction for murder. My law, in this matter, is a little uncertain, but it seems it is an absolute defense, which is one which dears the accused absolutely, and not one which merely reduces the conviction to one of manslaughter. I have read somewhere that the defense has recent recognition from the High Court. So, it is not an aberration. The fear induced by the assailant is so extreme that the law holds the accused has been fully justified in killing him in self-defense. I suggest that what the law sees as causing the fear is the assailant's "advances", and so puffing the accused in fear of being infected and defiled by homosexuality; a fate which the law evidently sees as worse than death.

The basic position is that "homosexuality is an abomination before the Lord", and that homosexuals are in the army of Satan. Hence, the persistent rumors and stories of Satanism. Included in Ms Arena's box of "information" is the story of a castle in Melbourne where babies are being bred for use in satanic ritual sacrifice. The Report devotes a whole chapter to SAA - Satanic Ritual Abuse; which however, it gave short shift; as threatening the credibility of the main game, which is to seek out and destroy paedophiles. But no such qualms seem to have occurred to Ms Arena, because the satanic stuff was included in the "facts": which she was threatening to reveal in Parliament. The truth is that the belief that homosexuals are persons who have sold their souls to Satan is a very deep-seated one, and one very common amongst homophobic. Talk of a Royal Commission cover-up probably normally contains implications of a satanic ritual cover-up.

I am reminded of those Hammer vampire movies, where whole communities are threatened by vampires. The story goes that, once you have been bitten by a vampire, you become a vampire yourself. And the souls of vampires are in the possession of Satan. Vampires are particularly attracted to beautiful virgins. Presumably, paed vampires prefer beautiful boys. Just as vampires are thought to act as soul collectors for Satan, so predatory paedophiles hunt for the souls of boys. Once a paedophile captures a boy's soul by having sex with him, which soul belongs to Satan; and the boy is hereby turned into a predatory homosexual paedophile; who, in turn, captures more boy's souls. Paedophiles are the front-line troops of Satan. But, the souls of all paedophiles, even if they are not predatory paedophiles, belong to Satan. But, maybe there is no such class. Because, just as vampires cannot live (if you can call it living) without the occasional sup of the blood of a virgin, so a homosexual feels driven to indulge his unspeakable lusts from the body of a beautiful innocent boy, with essentially similar results.

Good, prosperous communities obey God. There are numerous stories in the Old Testament, where the Jews, having forgotten God, and were doing their own thing, were visited by God with terrible punishments. But, having repented, their prosperity is restored. So it is with us, and it is the function of the Establishment, through preaching and punishment, to make sure that we do obey God. The enemy of God is Satan, and homosexuals are persons who have turned away from God, and doing their own thing, and indulging in their lustful and selfish desires, have sold themselves to Satan. They pervert and subvert the community so as to invite to it God's anger and vengeance. Quite evidently, what is at the back of these people's minds is the awful fate of Sodom and Gomorra.

The Sodom and Gomorra story indicates that homosexuality was at the center of the Israelites' worship of the "other gods", which caused the one and only God so much anger. The duty of the Jews was to obey God. The obedience involved the observance of an extensive list of rules and prohibitions; and, generally speaking, obedience was about suffering and pain. In return for this acknowledgment and obedience, God granted prosperity. It seems the ancient Jews had little concept of an afterlife, and tended to be somewhat materialistic.

Very early on, the custom grew up of having surrogate sufferers in the form of sacrificial animals. You offered up an animal - preferably one, which was symbolically sinless, like a white dove - which suffered in your stead, and gave to God the pain, which he was thought to crave. We need to keep in mind that morality was felt to be about pain, and a good life was one full of suffering for the sake of God. Once the surrogate offering has been made on your behalf, with much ritual and ceremonial - and you having made a suitable offering to the officiating priests, you could get on with enjoying life with the ease of mind that comes of knowing you have made full account.

In the sense that enjoyment generally was considered sinful, the sacrifice was made as atonement for that sin. But, the one sin for sacrifice could not atone for was homosexuality; because it implied the worship of "other gods".

All of this relationship with God is termed the first covenant. Christianity teaches that God sacrificing his own son upon the Cross brought this first covenant to an end. If you acknowledge and love God, and accept this gift as one which is made for you personally, you can get on with living a life where you love other people as God loves you. And you will be living life positively and to the full - as the duty which, in this new covenant, you owe to God.

But, the views of St. Paul, and the view of mainline Christian churches is that, because homosexuality implies the worship of other gods, namely Satan and his demons, there is no "saving grace" available for it. And the view of many is that, not only is the death penalty the eventual fate of the soul, but that it should be the penalty in this life. Be that as it may, it is agreed that the soul of a homosexual belongs to Satan, and not to God, and has done so from the time of the very first homosexual experience.

On the 3rd April, a Colin Fisk, the same Colin Fisk, whose allegations to two politicians, Ms Arena and Ms Deirdre Grusovin triggered off the paedophile segment of the Wood Royal Commission into Police Service corruption. Which ran from about February 1996 till about July 1997; and whose Report, handed down in August 1997, forms the subject of this review. This same Colin Fisk was sentenced to a maximum of twelve years in custody, with a minimum of nine years in custody. From The Daily Telegraph's report of the next day:

"Colin John. Fisk 49 pleaded guilty to 24 charges dating back to 1975 - including buggery, indecent assault, and homosexual intercourse - involving three boys. Judge David Shillington in Downing Centre District Court said Fisk preyed on three boys from dysfunctional families, one of them deaf, and had used alcohol and marijuana to achieve his desires."

It is unlikely Mr. Fisk will be getting out in nine years time. At the expiration of his minimum term, a prison inmate is free to make application for parole. But this has to be approved by the Offenders Review Board; and, since parole periods as long as three years are not favored by Correctional Services, it is likely he will be asked to resubmit his application in twelve month's time. This is ten years in custody. And the same as Maurice Papon got in France for crimes against humanity; but where the probable served time is unclear.

It seems a long sentence; especially as the judge indicated that, if it had not been for his guilty- plea and "cooperation", he would have got two more years - presumably on his "top". From The Sydney Morning Herald report of the same day, we learn that the offenses took place "between March 1974 and December 1988 on boys aged between 13 and 19". The earliest was 25 years ago. The last one was ten years ago, "You provided them with accommodation and money, and in one case you gave them alcohol and drugs. You flattered the boys and treated them as equals", the Judge is quoted as saying. Gosh, so he treated them as equals, and shared a couple of cans and smoked a joint. Wow, what iniquity this was! I reckon that, for this behavior on the bench, it is the judge who should have got the twelve years. Moreover, "The three boys came from dysfunctional families. For two, there was tacit parental consent". "Which only made it worse", the judge is quoted as remarking. Why? One thing this report makes clear is that there was no physical or mental intimidation; and, at the time - which is the only time which should matter - there was factual consent. So they came from "dysfunctional" families. So have all of us. What was the judge's family like? Should he be allowed to have sex?

"The boys now suffered from physical, psychological and relationship problems, and Fisk's physical abuse of them had changed and degraded their lives", the judge said". So, there you are. The judge's use of the word "degraded" is proof positive of his homophobia. It is my strong impression that most judges are Catholic, and that they have absorbed that Church's beliefs about homosexuality with their mother's milk; but it is possible that they judge may never have devoted a moment's conscious thought to them. It is probable that he is an absolute moralist and, that for him, there is things which are right, and things which are wrong; and that these matters are foundational and not open to question. Pressed, he might refer you to the community "'in values and attitudes, which the criminal law refers to as its measure of what is fight and what is wrong. But the trouble is that it seems that it is only the values and attitudes of the most conservative and reactionary end of the community which is relevant. The judge is likely to be a puritan, who believes that all pleasure is wrong; and that sex is about the begetting of children only; and that life generally is about duty; for which, incidentally, he is being well remunerated. The mere fact that Mr. Fisk apparently got pleasure from what he did would have been enough to earn him along sentence from Judge Shillington.

It is assessment of these people that they go through life playing follow the leader. They are like the soldiers of the Great War going "over the top". They go over and most of them to their deaths, in the blind faith that they are right. But, in case their faith falters, there is the even greater fear of the certainty that they will be shot if they remain behind. Perhaps, in the end, it is this fear, which is decisive.

What is the position with Colin. Fisk? On the fact of the evidence, as revealed in the media reports, he has received m absurdly over the top sentence. He has committed a technical breach of the law, in that he disregarded the legal age-of-consent. He will, have to serve at least ten years in prison,, with at least seven of those in maximum security. True, the complainants blame him for all their life's problems. But, this is understandable in view of their being in line for the $50,000 victim's compensation each. It is easy to blame somebody else for life's failures. To my mind, whatever real harm they will be suffering will be stemming from this immoral and character destroying attitude.

I suspect that the trial", conviction and sentencing of Colin Fisk is basically about the revenge of the system for his part in the triggering of the Royal Commission. According to The Sydney Morning Herald, he boasted on Channel Nine 's A Current Affair of being "involved, with other paedophiles in sexual activity with up to 300 boys". Mr. Fisk emerges as a remarkably silly and vain person prone to fantasizing. I do not believe the 300 figure, any more than the "thousands of boys" mentioned by the ABC. Personal admissions is admissible evidence, But Judge Shillington seems to have given the matter undue weight when determining his sentence. It will be interesting to see whether the Supreme Court takes the same view. For, it is extremely probable that Fisk will be appealing. (He did appeal, and his sentence was confirmed - with the usual tongue-lashing.) However, be this as it may, Fisk has certainly had more boys than those concerned in his conviction. One wonders how the police so conveniently found them after all these years.

In the classic phrase, the system, "tasted, chewed, swallowed and spewed". He thought he was using it to wreck some private vengeance, but it was using him. He emerges as the classic "dog". He glories in the limelight and notoriety; and, in the end gets his inevitable deserts. But, was there some truth in his allegations of paedophilia is high places?

Absolute morality, aid the morality of the "system" is absolute morality, is a public morality; and, in the last analysis, depends upon hierarchy and power. It is the person who has the power who determines what is right and what is wrong. The morality of Nazi Germany was, in the last analysis, the morality of Adolf Hitler. In Austinian positivism (a legal doctrine in jurisprudence) it is the will and command of the sovereign. And the sovereign can refer to the will of God, or the will of the people; or the familiar "community values and attitudes". Criminal judges like saying that they are applying absolute rights and wrongs, which cannot be questioned - very much the spirit of the Report - and that they personally believe that morality is about pain, and that life should be about suffering and causing suffering, and that they are persons dominated with the need to rigidly obsessive obligations and duties. Pleasure is sinful, and it is the function of the criminal law to see that it is punished.

But a morality which is so dependent upon external powers and sanctions, and which is so basically irrational, must suffer from the fatal defect that "when the cat's away, the mice do play". Under their wigs and gowns, these oh so stern judges still, retain some sort of vestigial notion of what it means to be human beings,, and they are still subject to the desires and needs of human beings. They may marry out of duty to somebody who is "suitable", and they may have sex merely in order to fulfill their duty to beget children. But, underneath it all is the sane human need to give and receive love, which afflicts us all. It was this need which impelled the unfortunate David Yeldham, the judge who got caught. It is basic to the human condition to want and seek pleasure; and by pleasure I mean real sensual pleasure, and not that sort of pleasure a judge might get from handing down a twelve year sentence. Man does not live on bread alone; and a morality which is based on the presupposition that he can and should, is bound to fail.

Thus, it is likely that our moral guardians, judges, police, politicians, psychiatrists, psychologists, and priests, "dabble". Sometimes, they are caught, most notoriously priests, but mostly they do not. But normally they are not. Sex, is normally a private activity. With much encouragement, some priests' boys, now long since grown-up, have talked to the authorities. I wonder how many of them now regret it, especially if the thirty pieces of silver has been involved. Normally there might be rumors but no hard evidence. The foolish Colin Fisk thought he would get a pat on the back from taking his rumors to the very same people the rumors were about. He is probably now sitting in his cell wondering bitterly why he didn't get his pat on the back. The answer to the problem is not bigger and better witch-hunts, but a more open, honest, and rational morality.

Because absolute morality is irrational, and founded on power, it is about the sanction of fear and punishment, and it is limited by the eleventh commandment, "thou shalt not be found out". It is therefore also about hypocrisy. I suggest that the exposure of this hypocrisy was basically, what Colin Fisk was about. This also explains the residual sympathy accorded to Franca Arena. When push came to shove in the Royal Commission, neither of these people had the immediate personal knowledge required in a court of law, and they could not produce or identify persons who have. All that they were able to produce was rumor and remote hearsay. I suggest the Royal Commission realized this very early in its hearings. Incidentally, Franca Arena had declined to appear before the Commission, and the stuff she produced to a subsequent Parliamentary committee of inquiry into her fitness to remain a member of parliament, show her to have become obsessed with paedophilic Satanism. Which takes us back to the mainstream Christian view that homosexuality is essentially about Satanism, and is a satanic practice; and that all gays are Satan worshippers, and under his power. Ms Area is a Catholic and would share the view of her church that the atoning grace of Christ's death applies only to Original Sin, i.e. the sin we have inherited from Adam and Eve's disobedience of God; and that all pleasures are sinful, and have to be atoned for by "good works", i.e.. penance's. She would believe that all sex without procreative purpose is sinful, and therefore tainted with the worship of Satan; and that this especially applies to homosexuality, which, in its essence, is not procreative. I suggest that, even though it specifically was dismissive of Satanic Ritual Abuse - SRA - the Royal Commission shared her view.

I suggest that we can begin the history of the Wood Royal Commission - Paedophile Division, as long ago as the passing of the homosexual decriminalization legislation in 1984. The events surrounding this milestone are within my personal memory. I remember my hurling of abuse at the Rev Shilton, Anglican Dean of Sydney in the late seventies - and getting rapped over the knuckles by the then pastor of the Metropolitan Community Church, who was concerned about the possible discredit my unseemly behavior could have brought upon the movement.

The view of the system's attitude to homosexuality had not weakened, but the legal position had been weakened by the then new anti-discrimination policy, and the New South Wales Act on this subject had included sexual preference in its list of matters, which should not be subject to discrimination. Multiculturalism was now official policy, and multiculturalism included humanist belief, so that laws, which had a specifically Christian origin, were being subject to scrutiny. And the gay lobby was pushing these arguments with vigor.

So, the system decided to make a tactical retreat, and to establish a shorter, more easily defensible line. It would agree to decriminalization; but under three conditions: that there be consent, that the act is in private, and that the age-of-consent be 18. The first and last conditions are related. If one of the partners is below the age-of-consent, than there has been no consent, and the act has been one of assault and rape. The privacy condition was insisted upon because there was a requirement that there should be no proselytizing of homosexuality. The intention was that not only should the act not be in public but that collateral practices should not be either. Even today, fourteen years otter the passing of the Act, we rarely see public homosexual displays of affection whereas heterosexuals are not only permitted, but expected, to display their affection in public. The gay and lesbian community accepted the conditions, and even, to an extent, has been concerned with their enforcement, especially as regards the age-of-consent.

But, the system, in its grant of decriminalization, had not done so in the spirit of liberality. It firmly believed in the disease and contagion theory, and felt that little could be done for those whose souls were already in the possession of Satan but that a vigorous and strict enforcement of the age-of-consent would prevent fresh contamination. It assumed that uncontaminated adults would always refuse homosexual advances because they "knew what it was about"; and adult males are difficult to rape. If all efforts would be concentrated on the protection of children, the contamination would eventually die out. The system has a strong belief in the purity, weakness, and vulnerability of boys. Boys might be tempted to accept an adult's advances, because they have unformed minds, and do not know what it is about. In any case, they are too weak physically to resist the attentions of adults; and, being under the economic and emotional power of adults, they are easily intimidated. In the last analysis, we cannot prevent adults choosing to sell their souls to Satan - is this not freedom of religion? But we have an absolute moral obligation to protect the kids. It seems strange but it is my strong impression that the gay and lesbian community gives its assent to these propositions.

The gay and lesbian community had wanted 16 to be the age-of-consent; but, faced with a fait accompli, it hoped that in time, a de facto general age-of-consent would prevail. But it was wrong; because the intention was that the law should be strictly and vigorously enforced. The heterosexual age-of-consent is 16, and the dear and unmistakable message of the unequal age-of-consent is that homosexuality remains legally and socially unacceptable, if not a crime in the strict sense. In a practical sense, it was well understood that the years 16 to l8 are a sexual window, when the boys are leaving the nest and are inclined to experiment. Whereas at 18, they are more aware of what is sexually acceptable, and what is not. At 18, they are expected to have a girl friend, and the girls make sure they usually do. The social reality is that there is little a boy can do, or places he can go to, without a girl hanging on his arm. In my day, this position was absolute; but today, he can go to gay venues, provided he is over 18 and willing to suffer the embarrassment of being asked to show ID. In my day, I think we had to be 21 before we could go into a pub; but I suspect it was only obvious juveniles who ran serious risk of being refused service. But, I was a timid youth, and I think that I was well into my twenties before I felt game enough to venture onto licensed premises. The law is hoping and expecting that a boy, on his 18th birthday, does not suddenly put away childish things and grow up. On legal attitudes, it should be noted that one of the "boys" Colin Fisk was convicted for having sex with was 19. This is strictly legal, because the offenses were committed before 1984. But we should keep this in mind when considering the import of the Commission's recommendation that the age-of-consent be reduced to 16. And before singing our praises of Justice James Wood, we need. to be reading the fine print, and asking questions about the quid pro quo.

The system hoped, through its now specific and targeted control of what it believed to be the gay community's entry point that it would, within a few years, stifle and kill it. The police, through their detection, conviction, and incarceration of paedophiles - and let us not be carried away about quibbles on the meaning of this word; a paedophile, as far as the system is concerned, is a gay who likes the chickens -, would prevent fresh contamination.

But, this is not how things turned out. With every year, the Mardi Gras parades grew bigger and more outrageous, and more blatant. So, with every year, the police grew more proactive and the sentences grew longer. When I got my three and quarter years in 1990, the legal opinion was that in the early years, 1984/85, 1 could have expected only a bond. Today, on the example of Colin Fisk, I would have been lucky with a top of ten years. Incidentally, the judge was talking of giving Fisk fourteen years, because this was the maximum the law prescribed, before 1984, for buggery. Judge Shillington was quite happy to consider handing down a sentence, which in those days, no judge would ever have considered.

So, the law grew harsher, but the Mardi Gras got bigger and bigger. Obviously, there must still be enormous numbers of paedophiles out there, happily, and in safety, doing their evil deeds. So, in spite of concentrated police effort since the task force on child sexual abuse tabled its report in 1985, why are not this people being apprehended and punished? The suspicion arose, and got stronger and stronger, that the police effort was somewhat less than concentrated, and that paedophiles were being corruptly protected by persons from inside the system itself, and persons who were, themselves, paedophiles. So, everything was set to go, when Colin Fisk pulled the trigger, and the Wood Royal Commission was set up to dig out the high level network of paedophiles which was corruptly influencing the work of the Police Service. It is generally thought that the paedophile segment of this commission was an afterthought to the main inquiry into the Police Service, which proceeded it and ran concurrently with it. My suspicion is that it was not. I suspect that the so-called main inquiry was merely a pretext end excuse for the paedophile inquiry and the real question was; were the police protecting high-level paedophiles, who, because of their position, were able to extend their protection to all paedophiles; or, at least, most paedophiles? There would always have to be a certain number detected and convicted to function as a cover.

But, let us go back to 1984. Although the motivation behind the system's anti-homosexuality was religious, it needed humanist support to carry its program into effect. It is probably fair to say that most psychologists and psychiatrists profess humanism as do most media people. Although I would qualify this with my impression that most of these persons have had a Catholic upbringing, and that their humanism has a Catholic complexion. Nevertheless, talk about Satan and something that is an abomination to the Lord" is likely to strike a mental barrier before reaching their hearts and minds.

So, the system put out an elaborate ideological and linguistic smoke screen. It never referred to the age-of-consent, and it never used the word "paedophilia", and it was not until the Royal Commission that specific references to it were made. Always, the term "child sexual abuse" was used, with the meaning of "child" being left purposely vague - meaning anything from tiny tots to whatever. It was a smoke screen. I raised the question of the age-of-consent at a legal seminar. The psychiatrist at the table started talking about two-year olds! The word "abuse" is always used, and implies the use of physical or mental intimidation as the enabling factor; in other words, rape. But the word "rape" is never used. Keep it stupid. Keep it vague. But, once charges are laid, the word "assault" is always used. And, once in prison, any so-called psychotherapy the offender might be forced to undergo has, as its object, the correction of his characteristic violent sexual behavioral patterns.

Yet, the media reports of Colin Fisk's offenses do not reveal them to be violent. In fact, on the contrary, they seem to reveal them to be acceptable, but for the age factor. In most of my works I have included copies of my "victims" statements of evidence; with the specific object of pointing out the nonviolent nature of the offenses - allowing the official prosecutor's documents to speak for themselves. At my interview at the time of arrest, one of the detectives remarked that the boys were willing. I suggest that 1 am not Robinson Crusoe, and that, normally, paedophile offenses are non violent. I charge that the system knows this very well, and is playing a confidence trick. The psychs play the three monkeys trick and place their hands over their eyes. I strongly suspect that the only document which went on my Correctional Service file was my charge sheet; referring of course, to "sexual assaults". I strongly suspect that the file did not include the boys' statement of evidence. The incompleteness of my file caused me to have three parole board hearings, and for my grant to be delayed a week.

I suggest that the psychologists, whose duties included making official reports about me, were well aware that they were not in possession of the facts, and that they connived at this lack because they knew, or strongly suspected, that they were playing a meaningless and unpleasant game. The media are a part of the system; and, before the Royal Commission, would not have been so revealingly explicit about the nature of Fisk's offenses. To some extent, at least, the proceedings of the Royal Commission have lifted the veil. The media is a part of the system's propaganda machine, and plays the same role in concealing the truth as the media did in Nazi Germany in concealing from the Germans what was happening to the Jews in their midst. Some of the Germans may have suspected, but they chose to go along with what they were being told. I remember an officer in Cooma jubilantly exclaiming, on receiving news of his transfer, that he was going to a place where there were real crims.

Once the public is convinced that paedophiles are violent criminals, it will be persuaded that the children will need protection by the harshest and most drastic measures; and this will be so whatever its ideological or religious bent may be.

In the effective performance of its confidence trick, the system was much aided by the various ideological and social movements that flourished during the nineteen-eighties. The dominant sociological theory was (is) social constructionism, whereby it is believed that society can be conditioned into acting rightly, thinking rightly, and saying the right things by being fed with the right thoughts by authority and the media. This is the political correctness movement. Is it effective? Well, it is my opinion that Paul Keating's wholesale commitment to political correctness was instrumental in the dramatic defeats of his government in the 1996 Federal elections. People dislike the feeling of being manipulated. The system's attempts to manipulate the public into having right thoughts about paedophilia have not been tested. But I am aware from official statistics, that conviction rates for persons put on trial for alleged paedophile offenses is below fifty percent, and a long way below the rate for all categories of crime; which was a matter which concerned the Royal Commission. It is conventional legal wisdom in this area, that accused persons should not avail themselves of the option of being tried by a single judge sitting alone. The Soviet Union's internal propaganda machine was founded on social constructionism. But, in its fifty odd year's trial, it seems to have been totally ineffective. Social constructionism is very much a Marxist thing, and the essentially right-wing system must have felt itself very fortunate in finding itself with such a fervent (and stupid) ally.

Then, there was the radical feminist movement. Since these women believed - or purported to believe - that all men are monsters, it was easy to convince them that paedophiles, whom the system puts out are all men, are a menace to society and to women and children. Early in the piece there was much feminist concern with incestuous fathers; and the figure of one in three daughters being "abused' was repeated like a mantra. But this aspect seems to have been forgotten. Women are never sexual offenders, because women do not indulge in violent sex. No! What about the bondage mistress I knew once? Women responded enthusiastically to the anti-child-abuse campaign because they saw it as a stick with which they could beat men. I know a woman psychologist who offered to treat me. I told her that I thought her real object was less concerned with my welfare than to obtain power over me; and I somewhat rudely refused her offer.

Then there were the "alternative" psychotherapists. They believed and still believe that all mental and emotional troubles stem from sexual experience in childhood; to use the jargon, victims of child sexual abuse. And, it should be emphasized, this includes all sexual experience. There is an assumption that you cannot have a good sexual experience if you are below a certain age. And the "certain" age is the age-of-consent fixed by law. So, you present yourself-to one of these therapists, and cannot remember having been raped as a baby? No problem, you have repressed your memory of it; and the task of the good therapist is to enable you to "remember" it. So, you deny being raped, as a baby? "Quit denying, you are making me angry". And we would not want to anger our therapist, would we! Would we?

The idea is based on a false theory of memory, whereby memory is like a video tape recorder, recording everything, and forgetting nothing. But it is subject to the pleasure principle, whereby we push memories from our conscious minds, "forget", if they displease us, or cause us pain.

Oh that memory was like that. What a breeze all of those fiendishly hard law exams would have been. And think of all that case law that has been forgotten. Some people do have the so-called photographic memory, but it must be just as much a curse as a blessing, because they seem to be preoccupied with trivia. It is a part of the efficient thinking process to be able to judge and filter out non-essentials before they hit the memory bank. But these people seem to lack this facility. It would seem then, that photographic memory is pathology. Be this as it may. It is just not true that I remember pleasant experiences, and forget unpleasant experiences. Rather, it is the other way about, and I remember unpleasant things because such memories have survival value. I can still vividly remember putting my hand on an electric radiator when I was five years old. This was in 1939, and it is unlikely that I had ever seen such a thing before.

It is a debased form of psychoanalysis. Very early in the piece, Sigmund Freud apparently thought of repression in terms of memory; but, in his maturity, he was thinking of drives. A more recent influence is probably scientology. It is not appropriate to describe scientology as bogus, but the temptation is strong. It is significant that, like scientologists, these therapists like carrying back memories, not just to the very beginnings of this life, in the uterus, but to "past lives". So my "memories" of being raped, by Ghengis Khan accounts for the man I am today. In the recent ABC TV show, Lateline (10.30pm 16/4/98), about the British College of Psychiatry's decision to condemn the concept of Repressed Memory Syndrome there was a discussion about the qualifications of these therapists. One of the speakers insisted on a Ph.D.), the other was talking of possessors of master degrees. It is my impression that many of these therapists possess no more than a nursing qualification, and some, nothing at all. These people insist that being abused themselves is qualification enough; with their belief that they have been abused coming from "recovered memories". The thing is a contagious disease; like homosexuality is supposed to be. The Royal Commission expressed its concern about the matter, and recommended that all sex therapists be registered.

The belief, that all childhood - read below the legal age-of-consent - sex is about rape, is a derivative of the belief in childhood innocence. Sex is seen as being of the flesh and Satan and is inherently evil; whilst the spirit is of God, and is inherently good. Not just homosexuality, but all sexuality is a contagious disease whose injury is to the spirit. Until our first sexual experience, we are pure, and we have direct communication with God; just as Adam and Eve had before the Fall. And, at that time, Adam and Eve were innocent just as children are today. And they dwelt in paradise; just as children dwell in paradise today, or should. Or they would if they were not being deprived of their birthright by the lusts of evil men; who deserve nothing less than total destruction. The psychs who are peddling this nonsense apparently believe that sexuality is something, which is visited upon us from outside; and if we are never "had", we will forever remain virginal and pure, and untroubled by lustful thoughts and desires. Just as those of us who have never betoken of heroin are untroubled by cravings for the stuff. These psyche are trained in behaviorism, whereby we are mechanisms which respond when actuated by a stimulus, rather like a computer; and any Freudian like suggestion that our sexuality might have an altogether different and more profound meaning is treated with derision. And any suggestion that children are naturally sexual unless the drive has been repressed through being associated with fear and punishment. And visited by what one of my philosophy lecturers used to refer to as "administrative measures". Most psychs are absolute moralists, and never lift the veil on what lies behind their absolutist concepts of right and wrong; but some, when pressed., will rabbit on about children not being emotionally strong enough to handle the emotions aroused by sex. These seem to be mostly women; who don't understand male sexuality anyway. They do not understand that, for boys, sex is more physical than emotional, and that, for example, they particularly like gangbangs. Anyway, how would you learn to ride a bike if you were never allowed to mount one. How would you learn to swim if you were never allowed to enter the water? How would you learn to drive a car if you were never allowed into the driver's seat? The Church teaches that our first sex experience should be on our marriage night, with homosexuals being forever denied this privilege. I suggest that the marriage-bed should be the graduating ceremony, not the first lesson; and that the Family Law Court is a harsh place in which to learn from one's mistakes. To these people, I can only say. "Get real".

The appeal to "childhood" innocence strikes a powerful chord with those parents who don't want their children to leave the nest but to forever remain faithful, obedient, and dependent. Particularly in these days of the nuclear family and social isolation, the children are seen as a ready-made sphere of influence and power. On the other hand, awareness of one's sexuality brings with it a sense of self-awareness, identity and a desire for self-responsibility and independence. Just the things which, particularly mothers, do not want to see in their sons, and which are ruthlessly crushed when they appear. No wonder the sons become neurotic and moody, and tending to display just those problems, Which the Royal Commission Report blamed on child sexual abuse. Which, in a way, I suppose, it was right.

Because the psychs see children as "innocent" and dwelling in paradise, and walking with God as undefiled and pure creatures, they always assume that the children will experience their first sexual experience as horribly unpleasant. Rather like when one gets one's first bite from a vampire. Of course the children - the boys - will resist with all their might an experience which is going to render them vile and corrupted and creatures of Satan. And which will inevitably lead to them being thrown out of the paradise of childhood and into the hard, cold, and lonely world of adulthood. Thus child sex is always child sexual abuse. Of course, once a child has been corrupted, he will go on to corrupt other children; and the Royal Commission identified this as a problem; and identified the children as being in need of remedial therapy. In general, I can detect the system as having a hidden agenda of rendering the community into one huge family, with the system as the parent figure, with the people forever sexually controlled, obedient, and faithful.. I know, because of the control the system has over my own sexuality that I am forever aware of it; whereas otherwise I would probably do my own thing and ignore it. Like Big Brother in George Orwell 's 1984, the system doesn't like being ignored. And, in some strange way, it wants to be loved. It limits my fulfillment, and I hate it.

An unexpected ally the system has is the residual neo-Marxism from the Vietnam War days; and the Marxist view -or neo-Marxist - of sex is that it is about power, and is about the oppression, exploitation, humiliation, and imposition of pain, by powerful patriarchal males upon helpless women and children. According to this view, all sex is basically assault and rape; and this view is reflected in the tone and wording of our sex law. Academia seems to be the heartland of this view, particularly in law and sociology.

All in all, almost for the past couple of decades, the official view of sex has been pretty negative. I suspect that this is a result of deliberate intent. Officially, the system has supported the safe-sex approach to the control of AIDS. Unofficially, and I suspect in truer accord with its instincts and desires, the system has gone for the total abstinence approach. The system believes in controlled, state sanctioned and recognized, sex only; that is sex within marriage; and it hates the homosexuality to which AIDS is mostly relevant. I suspect that the system doesn't really believe in any of these anti-sex theories at all; and nowhere are they given explicit statement. But official backing was given to an anti-harassment campaign in the workplace; and ad nauseam, we were showed with TV drama and plays portraying evil male bosses relentlessly pursuing hapless secretaries. I went to see one of these plays at the Opera House. It was awful. What the system was using was social constructionism; or, less grandly, political correctness. Sex education in schools, even at the primary level - perhaps particularly at the primary level - concentrates on warning children against adult sexual predators; and they are strongly warned against "wrong touching". So, right from their earliest days, these children are being taught to closely associate sex and violence, and to learn that sex is wrong. I suggest that the fruits of this dreadful teaching supposedly given with the object of protecting the children - are going to be terribly damaging as the children mature into adults; with an enormous increase in neurosis and mental illness. I suggest that Freud wasn't wrong when he identified a fundamental link between mental illness and sexual repression. I will be discussing this matter further in another chapter.

So, the system, using the method of social constructionism, has been able to construct a social climate in which an intensive campaign can be conducted against paedophiles. Enormous sentences are handed down to them for the most trivial of deeds, without protest, even from the very compliant gay and lesbian community. All along, it has the grand object of imposing a set of religious beliefs that only a tiny minority of the general community believes; and an even smaller minority of the gay and lesbian community. Even though I am a practicing Christian - because I am a practicing Christian - I have a firm conviction that these beliefs are both wrong and evil. The system has been successful because it has cloaked its real belief structure end motives with a phony belief structure, and the phony motive of "protecting children. It is all being done by mirrors and an intensive social conditioning and media campaigns - and fear.

I have suggested that the stage was set for the constituting of the Royal Commission, because of the concerns the system was feeling about the spread of homosexuality, in spite of the use of the legal methods; which, according to its belief system, should have been killing it off at its source. According to the system's belief system, homosexuality is a contagious disease of the soul, which is spread by the infection of boys by satanic paedophiles. In spite of harsh laws, harshly applied, aimed at the containment of the activities of these evil men, homosexuality still seemed to be spreading at an alarming rate. So, the inference was made that the containment process was not working because something was wrong with the legal process; and that something was corruption. I now suggest that the trigger itself was set and pulled by a perception that this law was indeed being harshly applied, but selectively applied. That there were certain people being given years of imprisonment for minor first offenses; that years ago, would have earned merely a bond, in the unlikely event that charges would have been laid at all. And, at the same time, there seemed to be men getting away - to use an expression - with murder. Suggests that the unfortunates, who were given the treatment, were being used as scapegoats, or fodder, to satisfy the appetite of the media and politicians.

So, from the general suspicion that there was something rotten in the State of New South Wales, there came the more focused suspicion that the something rotten was to be found within the system itself. And that there existed a "network" of highly placed paedophiles, who used their connection - the concept of a network - to secure immunity from prosecution for themselves and their mates. Too bad, if you weren't in the network. To bad if you fell out with the network.

At this point, I need to give a summary of my own views. I believe the incidence of sex involving under age-of-consent boys is as common as j-walking. I know that homosexuality transcends all ethnic and social borders. I find it inconceivable that any age barrier confines it; and that I find the protestations to the contrary to be incredible. I do not believe paedophilia to be pathological. Indeed, I believe that it has an immense potential for good to all concerned; and consider that any pathology associated with it is a direct consequence of being treated as such, and of its illegality. Still less do I believe it to be intrinsically evil and of Satan. I believe that Christ's death on the Cross extends its grace to all, and extends to all the duty to live our lives to the uttermost, including our sexuality. And that this grace and duty includes homosexuals. St. Paul never knew Christ, and I believe the Church is wrong in its putting him on a pedestal equal with Christ. I believe that some Of the teachings of Paul are inconsistent with the Gospels, and that, to the extent of the disagreement, those of Paul should be disregarded. Finally, in response to those who would accuse me rewriting the Bible, I declare that, when I come face to face with my Maker, that I will look him in the eye. I will take ill responsibility for my beliefs and actions and I am prepared to suffer the consequences if they are wrong. I do not believe it is morally right to abdicate personal responsibility in favor of any person or any book, not even when that book is the Bible.

What do I know about the incidence of paedophilia, as distinct from suspecting? Actually, I know nothing. I do not knowingly know any paedophiles. But, I will qualify this statement. I do know one chap who declares he is a paedophile. But I have never seen any evidence to back-up this claim. I rather suspect he is an agent of the CPEA - Child Protection Enforcement Agency, a unit of the NSW Police Service. I am a member of the gay community, but move in narrow circles. I know nothing of the sex lives of these men as currently lived. In fact, I know little of them beyond their first names - which I always have difficulty in remembering. We have lunch or dinner together, and I discuss what I am doing. But, they are careful about committing themselves. I am something of a pariah. In fact, if there is one all persuasive characteristic of the paed scene, it is its secrecy.

Even in gaol, I knew very little about the offenses of my fellow inmates. I understand that, in ordinary gaols, the inmates talk about their crimes. In Cooma, the ethos was to never mention them, and to never inquire about them of others. Most inmates emphatically affirmed their absolute innocence. This was so even in the group therapy sessions, which it was necessary to attend to obtain the psych reports demanded by the parole board. I suspect that those inmates in Cooma, who described crimes other than sex crimes, were drawing on their imagination, rather than fact.

The fetid air of secrecy is conducive to the fertilization of unhealthy imaginings. The Royal Commission heard a lot of allegations from psychs, about satanic rituals. They had heard them from patients during the process of recovering so-called memories of child sexual abuse. I have already noted the belief that paedophiles are Satanists. In the belief of these people, paedophiles are guilty of unspeakable crimes, like sacrificing babies; and bathing in baths of blood floating with body parts from newly slain boys. You see, the belief is that if you slay an innocent - and note this word "innocent" - boy and do unspeakable things with the body in the name of Satan, the Evil one will confer upon you his power. And you will be able to take over the system, and rule the country, and ultimately the world all in. the name of the Evil One. You see, according to these people, paedophilia is not about sex at all, but about power in its most lurid and foul manifestation. It is really sick stuff, and its dismissal by the Royal Commission was apparently one source of Franka Arena's indignant charges of a cover-up. Since allegations of this kind formed part of the material which the NSW Parliament forced out of her to back up her charges. My instinct is to regard this talk as so incredible as not to merit time being wasted on it. But, I have a friend who thinks it should be investigated. We have had the Holocaust, and we have had the Great War. But in the Holocaust, the Nazis thought, or were able to delude themselves, that what they were doing was in a just cause. And in the Great War, both sides had become locked in a life and death struggle that had acquired a demonic life of its own. In neither instance did the participants deliberately set out to do things, which they themselves considered evil. And there was plenty of evidence left around afterwards. Talk of the Holocaust is apposite because the Nazis had deliberately demonized the Jews in order to justify their actions. Which seems to be the pattern of witch-hunts throughout history. Somehow, we seem to have the need to throw our sins upon the shoulders of others - people who cannot hit back - in order to purify ourselves. So, the very pattern of the allegations makes them unlikely. And, they have been investigated apparently, and no evidence has ever been uncovered. There would be evidence, and plenty of it. You can get away with unlawful sex, because the "bodies" are few. Satanic Ritual Abuse would be leaving any number of bodies - in the literal sense of the word - and there would be many participants and accessories to the fact. As the Commissioner remarked in another context, "People talk".

Even getting away from the madness of Ritual Satanic Abuse, the system is apparently encouraging gross misconceptions about the nature of most paedophile crime. I had a personal experience of this. Last year I was woken by a young man standing at the foot of my bed armed with a hammer and a length of electricity flex. After threatening me with the hammer, he tied me up with the flex and a belt he had got from my trousers; and, after getting through his immediate business of trying to get my Bankcard pin number from me, he started to talk. He said he knew about my going to prison, and he said he knew what it was for. It was for raping a year 4 boy. I told him the true facts. I told him there were actually two boys, the elder had f*** *d me, and I had given the younger a couple of wanks. He didn't believe me. How could a grown man allow a couple of kids to use him for their sexual gratification? I got him a copy of Razorwire and off he went, carrying this, and my camera gear, and my Bankcard, and the spare cash he had found in my wallet, and my hammer, and my cap, which he was wearing to conceal his features. But, I will never forget his parting words: "I have always gone with girls. They have always been above the age-of-consent, and I have never broken the law". Note: later events have indicated that this may be the same young man who killed Arkell. And there is, at present (3/2/99) a person being held in custody charged with that offense.

That he had just committed the worst kind of robbery, for which he could have got about twelve years, apparently had not occurred to him. Compared to my crime, his was nothing, and he was the shining white knight. In spite of his threat that if I did such a thing, he would be back with his mates, I reported the incident to the police. I suspect their attitude was in sympathy with his. I heard nothing more; but, afterwards on the grapevine, I heard that a person answering his description was a notorious Kings Cross rent-boy and drug dealer; and thoroughly unpopular with his so-called mates, because he was also a notorious informer. I would suspect the police had a pretty good idea who it was, even from my meager description. Later, I read a press report of somebody of his description being arrested for the murder of an Artarmon schoolteacher a couple of years before. He had been suspected of this murder on the grapevine. I picked him for being a drug addict at the time of the crime, because of his shaking hands; and obviously his motive had been to get some quick money for a fix. You see; paeds are always rich. Not always, Mark; not always. The detective sergeant seriously suggested - yes seriously - that the shaking hands could have been caused by righteous anger. An interesting point is that the sexual role I had played with my boys was the same role he took with relation to his clients, but for money. The crime I had committed with the younger, the one which got me the 40 month head-sentence, would not have been considered even as sex by most straights (including a no less figure that President Clinton); the sort of sex you have when you're not having sex. My sentence was the typical sentence for paedophile offenders at that time (1990), and I suggest that the facts of my case were also the typical facts, and are the typical facts.

When paedophile offenders are in prison, they are strongly advised to go on protection; for otherwise, they would be in serious risk of being bashed up by other inmates, righteously indignant at the horrible things they have done to innocent, helpless children. I suppose it is the natural conclusion to reach, After all, 40 months is a long sentence in anybody's language, and the presupposition is that it must have been earned by a serious crime. An ordinary assault, even one causing "grievous bodily harm", will not ordinarily get you more than six months. So think what you must have done to get 40 months! And done that to an innocent little child! The usual rational for handing down long sentences for a particular crime is, amongst other things (this is not a treatise on punishment); to deter the offender, and other offenders in general, from repeating the offense. In addition to these, I suggest heavy sentences are handed down to paedophiles with the deliberate intent of inciting other inmates against them to induce the paedophiles to seek protection, and so to serve their time in circumstances much harder than it would otherwise be. The media and Corrective Services are encouraged to play a role in this incitement; and the long sentences are meant to encourage the public to take paedophilia seriously and to regard it as a serious crime. And to hide the true motives of the system; and to hide the true nature of the crime. To get the punishments that they do, these people must be doing terrible things to children. And this causes the public, through the very willing media to demand yet longer sentences. It is a vicious circle.

On this morning's Le Journal, SBS's French language current affairs show, 25/4/98, a considerable space was given to the trial of the alleged perpetrators of the Belgium paedophile murders. Much effort has been made by the media to use these murders to portray paedophiles as characteristically brutal, sadistic murderers. Yes, some paedophile relationships do end in murder. But, I suggest many more marriages meet the same fate. What we can be sure of is that all paedophile murders receive saturation media coverage. But, I can't remember any murders in NSW since those of Mick Lawrence around about 1985. He was a mass killer, but he is a one-off. In general, paedophile killings seem to be exceedingly rare; especially when it is realized that powerful emotions can be involved in these relationships; and when, considering the enormous punishments being handed down, there is such an incentive to "get rid of the evidence". The strong inference must be that paedophiles are not usually the murderer type; and that the meaning of the word "paedophile" is normally literally true; paeds do love children. I am sorry, Your Honour, but the facts do not support your picture of a paedophile as being a vicious brute who preys on little boys to satisfy his vicious lusts; end enjoys inflicting pain and suffering. Your Honour, I submit further, that most paedophiles will not know what you are talking about when you pronounce that sex, and particularly paedophile sex, is about power. And 1 further submit that paeds are inclined to treat children a lot better than you do. Remember how shocked the judge was when he found that Colin Fisk had treated his boys as equals.

But, the Belgium murders were about procuring young girls to feed the straight meat market, and were about money, and as far as the murderers were concerned, not about sex. So, they are not paedophiles at all; at least, not in the sense in which we are using the word. But police and political connivance and corruption were involved; and one wonders to what extent this model of a paedophile network was in the mind of the Royal Commission when it set out to investigate whether such an organization exists and operates in New South Wales.

Which behooves us to think about the local sex industry, in so far as it is about paedophilia. For, it is in this area that we could be having a potential for the Belgium situation.

The two areas that I would be having a close look at don't seemed to have concerned the Royal Commission at all. These are the escort agencies and adult bookshops. The city's adult book shops have long been a puzzle to me; and they were the subject of a letter that I had published in the Sydney Star Observer a couple of years ago. I wondered how so many of them, or any of them, manage to remain in business. In the old days, before these places came under government control in the early 1980s, they had a front shop and a back shop. The front shop contained the soft porn that you can buy at any news agency, like Playboy, and if the bloke at the counter didn't like the look of you, this is a far as you got. But he was pretty flexible - after all, he was in business, and his business was selling mags. And most of us, not women, got into the back shop with no questions asked; and here would be the real stuff, some, a lot, of which the possession of would be a criminal offense today. Obviously, the front shop was just that, a front, and the back was where the business was done, and the places I went to were often quite crowded. It was accepted, and I don't think there can be serious doubt, that they did pay the police, and others, protection money.

The point is that these places looked profitable. They had the stuff, which the customers wanted, and they had the customers. It is quite otherwise with the scene today. 1 have always been only able to see one shop, and it is filled with stuff little different from what would have filled the front counters in the old shops; and this time decently sealed inside a cellophane wrapper. Is suppose this is a regulation. These days, these places are highly regulated. But it doe prevent the customer from seeing what he buying; and after being stung a few times, I suggest he tends not to return. At least, this is my behavior. The mags are garbage from the porn point of view, and so too are the videos, which are all, R rated. R rated videos are garbage, both from the porn point of view and any point of view at all. I have rarely seen anybody in the shop but me, and my impression is that customer satisfaction is not high on the list of the proprietor's priorities. I have never seen evidences of a back room, and I have never ever been invited to enter one. And this is so in spite giving strong hints to the guy on the counter about what I am looking for. Obviously legal porn is not salable, so what is the real business of these shops?

Somebody explained to me that they are in the business of laundering money? Say I am in the business of dealing in illegal substances, but I want to appear squeaky clean to whoever has reason to go through my books. Let us say I have a thousand dollars I want cleaned up. I go into one of these shops and buy a grand's worth of books, as according to the prices stuck on to that cellophane cover. I get my receipt and immediately I sell the books back for half a grand. The books never actually leave their shelves, but the shop has made half a grand, and I, now have half a grand of clean money. But, why wouldn't I simply go to a club - I don't even have to go to a club now, any pub will do -and put the money through the pokies; and have a lot more fun, and perhaps make a profit along the way? A few years ago, I did business with a rent-boy. Now settle. He told me he was 18, and afterwards I found he was 23, which is a common experience, and I suggest the "boys" you pick up at the Fountain are more likely to be over - some well over - the magic age. He's dead now, having died of a heroin overdose. Anyway, he took me to the place where apparently he took all his customers, which was a shooting gallery over an adult bookshop. We went through the shop, and I paid the five-dollar rental, and went through a door and up some stairs. Half and hour later a buzzer signaled time-up. Obviously then, this particular adult book shop - which I cannot identify, both because I don't want to and because I simply can't, because these places all look the same and everything was in so much of a rush - was in businesses other than just adult-books. It doesn't take a great leap of imagination to found a speculation that some of these places just might be contact points for those boys not yet of an age to do business at the Fountain.

The rent-boy scene is the bottom end of the male sex industry. At the more salubrious end are the escort agencies. The two gay community freebies, the Star and the Q are filled with advertisements for escort agencies. It seems the boys are exceedingly expensive. I cannot speak from personal experience because I just don't have this kind of money. But there is one thing I can be certain of and that is the younger the boy is, the more expensive he is; and the law is directly responsible. Protection has to be paid; and for obvious reasons, the protection costs are going to be heavy. Can I provide proof? No! Can I provide any evidence at all? No! But, if I were to be setting up a business of this kind, I would have to take into account of my clients' expectations that I can, and will, provide safety against the heavy knock on the door. If I can't meet this expectation, I have no alternative but to do something else, like run a knitting circle. I assume that all businesses in the sex industry have always done, and do, pay protection, and the businesses I am thinking of are adult bookshops, escort agencies and saunas. But, I would expect that rent-boys operating on their own find it advantageous to kickback some of their takings to somebody. Do I have any proof? No! Do I have any evidence of any kind? No! As one policeman put it at a seminar I attended; in any corrupt dealing "there are two satisfied customers". So who is going to complain? Squealers did come forward to the Royal Commission, but one wonders if their fate was, or will be, the same as that of the unfortunate but foolish Colin Fisk.

I would say there is almost certainly a thriving under-the-age-consent segment of the homosexual sex industry. I have no evidence. But it is a general law of economics that where there is effective demand, there will be a supply; and by effective demand is meant demand backed with money; and there is certainly plenty of that. True, the rich paeds find it no trouble at all flying to overseas jurisdictions that are not controlled with the same values as New South Wales, and who have caused such concern to the Federal Government. But I suspect there is still a lot of demand remaining at home.

You see, it is just too dangerous for boy-lovers to attempt to form proper relationships. It is not so much now but say twenty years down the back when a middle-aged failure is persuaded by his psych that he can put the blame on somebody else; and, at the same time, have a chance to get fifty thousand dollars victims' compensation. It was this class which got Colin Fisk his twelve years, and it was this class which apparently gave the Royal Commission the bulk of its material.

There is another important point here. The law has such a poor view of sex in part because only persons with bad experiences take their problems to it. The Family Law Court deals only with bad marriages. The Royal Commission only had dealings with the "survivors" of unhappy paedophile relationships. That these might only form a tiny minority is something the Commission could not take account of. And this general consideration also applies to psychiatric and psychological consulting rooms. Psychiatrists and psychologists never see happy people, and neither do lawyers; at least not in the litigation part of their practices. Twenty years ago, psychologists only saw unhappy homosexuals and homosexuals charged with breaches of the law. And these were important reasons why homosexuality was regarded as a pathology. Today, the only paeds the psychs see are those in trouble. The same erroneous inferences are still being made. You would think they would learn. But no, they haven't learnt. And, of course, these remarks apply also to the boys. Doctors see only sick people in their consulting-rooms, but they don't go on to infer that the world must be sick.

To summarize; I believe that a very considerable part of active sex in the gay community involves the sex industry. This is my practical experience, and it is an inference from my sexual preference theory, which I have outlined in Punished for Love, An Essay on Mind, Morals and the Paedophile Scare, and An Introduction to Ego Concept, and which I will again outline later in this Review. This, and because there is no natural basis for the legal age-of-consent, leads me to expect that there is a very considerable amount of paedophile activity within the gay community. If there is a demand, the sex industry is not going to stand by legalities, especially if there is enough money to insure against the added risks. I do not like the sex industry. I believe there is a potential for a Belgium like situation to develop. The people who run the sex industry are quite different from its clientele and the people who run it are quite ruthless.

I believe that commercial sex is damaging to both parties, in that it reduces sex to its most basic element, at the cost of all those things which are best in the human condition. Sex workers must suffer from terrible inner loneliness; because sex is the deepest and most intimate of human relationships; and all this is denied to these people. And it is denied to the clients as well. In its connotations, commercial sex is a rejection of sex. In their misery and unhappiness, some sex workers ran to the Royal Commission. It is vice, because it trivializes and denigrates sex - not because it is sex, as the absolute moralists believe. And 1 throws the blame for all this misery at His Honor Justice James Wood. He is aware of the legal doctrine that if you can foresee certain consequences will flow from your actions, you are held to be responsible for them.

In today's Herald, (28/4/98) there is a headline "Child killer to remain in jail". It is the latest of the efforts to get John Lewthwaite released. Lewthwaite has been in gaol since 1974 for the murder of the five-year-old sister of the nine-year-old boy he fancied. He is the paradigm of the killer paedophile, which the psychs say is what all paedophiles are. In fact, he is one of the very rare paedophiles who have ever killed. And he didn't kill for the thrills, which the psychs say all paedophiles kill for, he killed to conceal the enterprise of kidnapping the boy, which the sister unluckily happened upon by coming on the scene at the wrong time. Lewthwaite was a closet homosexual whose greatest fear was that people should discover the truth. He hated homosexuals, and hated himself, and belonged to that truly dangerous class of persons, which I suspect, includes some psychs, judges and police. Psychs believe that the pleasure paedophiles get out of sex is from the oppression, exploitation, humiliation, and pain which they inflict; and that the prime attraction of their victims; and the reason for their selection, is their weakness and helplessness. In fact, Lewthwaite did not kill for this reason at all.

But, for me Levthwaite is a worry. I believe that all prison inmates should be released at some time or another, and Lewthwaite is not an exception. However, should he kill again, the consequences for paedophiles will be truly horrendous. Because, seemingly, with the help of a compliant media, the psychs will be vindicated in their belief that all paedophiles are dangerous child-killers, and should be locked up and the key thrown away. And this is just the news the system is waiting for. Lewthwaite claims to have changed, but the evidence is that he has not changed at all. In the beginning he hated being a homosexual, and went to any lengths, even murder to deny it. Now, he accepts being a homosexual, but he has been cured of his paedophilia. And he hates paedophiles - presumably. What I fear is that he will go to any lengths, even murder, to deny he has not been cured of paedophilia. It seems to me that, with him, the old adage applies, "things change but they remain the same". For him, his reputation means everything, and certainly more than the life of any child. And, if other paedophiles have to suffer for his transgression, what does he care. Anyway, he hates paedophiles. As for the psychs, they're marching to the wrong beat, and there is no way in the world they can arrive at an appraisal which is not utterly worthless.

Actually, I would recommend his release, but only on condition that he be watched very, very closely, for a very long time. And, with one step wrong, back he would go, pronto. Actually, other accounts of his case have seemed to suggest that this has happened before.

Now, the age of Lewthwaite's victim raises the question, which, up to now, I have left begging: What is a paedophile? The Royal Commission could only adopt a legal definition that is with reference to the age-of-consent. Anybody who has sex, or who is suspected of having sex, with anyone under the legal age-of-consent is a paedophile. The Commission was not concerned with heterosexual paedophilia but it could not be excluded entirely because of the policy of anti-discrimination. Even if you are not yet of the legal age, or were not, at the time, you are a paedophile. The Commission showed interest in children who "molest" other children; and devoted space to them in its section on the juvenile justice system. It was very firmly of the opinion that they should be "treated", as posing a threat and danger to other children. They could turn their "victims" into homosexuals just as assuredly as adults can.

But, the legal age-of-consent is a moveable feast, whose date is arbitrary. Even the Commission thought that the age of l8 is unreasonably high and unrealistic. No, as it happened, one of my boys had been over the recommended age of 16. Not much, but a miss is as good as a mile. Does this mean that, with reference to the relevant charges, a change in the law will change my status from being a paedophile to being good citizen? Logically it should, but I reckon that had the question been put to the Commission, it would have been met with an indignant denial. The Commission devoted a considerable space in its Report to telling us about the nature of a paedophile, without making reference to the age-of-consent at all. In the back of its mind was the belief that paedophiles are men who have accepted Satan's shilling, and are fighters in his army, and that their business is to pervert, corrupt, and tamper with, innocent little boys. Some paedophiles are such because, they themselves, have been sexually abused as little boys. They are not beyond redemption, and can be treated; although they must also be punished to satisfy the community's sense of justice and moral outrage. The really evil ones are those, why by choice, have sold their souls to the devil. These are the preferential paedophiles, of which the Commission felt much horror. You cannot arrive at an absolute definition of a paedophile with reference to the legal age-of-consent. The Commission tackled its task of reaching its absolute definition by baldly stating the age-of-consent criteria, then ignoring it thereafter in favor of absolute considerations. It hoped its reasoning dishonesty would not be noticed. And, it wasn't, not even by the official gay and lesbian community. Which has gone to great lengths to assure us it hates paedophiles, who it insists are absolutely different from homosexuals; and it is much puzzled and indignant that everybody has not immediately accepted this distinction as obvious and true. To my mind, the official Gay and Lesbian Community are as dishonest as the Royal Commission was.

There is a distinction between a paedophile and an ordinary person, which the law insists upon both here and in America (especially in America), in Britain, in France, and practically everywhere. And this is that all paedophiles are habitual rapists - serial rapists - who get their sexual pleasure from the imposition of fear, intimidation and torture. For paedophiles, sex is about power and. pain. Paeds usually go into denial when they are confronted with the truth about their evil and disgusting deeds. Most will confess when faced with the fact that they will not get their parole unless they do. Once he hears the confession, the psych goes "zapp", and kicks the disgusting creature from breakfast time to hell for being the disgusting creature he is. Had these psychs been around in Nazi Germany, they would have felt perfectly at home in the Gestapo. Totalitarian regimes generally like to be seen as on the side of justice and legality, and do not like to punish until they get the confession. It is a sort of self-delusion.

In the United States Megan's Law compels all persons convicted of a sex offense to register and notify all of his residential movements and changes in employment to the local police. There is no statute of limitation, and the duty is only discharged by death. Megan was a six year-old girl, who was tortured and killed by a recently discharged sex offender. Because it is generally held that the law is not concerned with morality, all sex offenses, including age-of-consent offenses, are described as assaults, mostly fictitiously. So, you go into prison for having sex with a 16 year-old, not because you have offended against the community's moral code, but because we deem you to have raped him. An interesting result of Megan's Law is that all those persons who have been convicted of offenses against the homosexual laws before decriminalization are included. But, the gay and lesbian community doesn't want to rock the boat. There are more important things to do; like say, running the annual Mardi Gras, and Sleaze Ball.- profitably!

We do not have a Megan's Law in New South Wales, yet. The Royal Commission, to its credit, was lukewarm on the idea. Well, perhaps not so much to its credit as that practical consideration made itself felt. In those countries, which have adopted it, it seems to be notoriously difficult to enforce. I am thinking of America and Britain. It seems that the level of registration compliance tends to be low; with even those evil ones who do bother registering, for example, register vacant lots as their addresses. Nobody wants to put his head in the noose for the amusement of the lynch-mob; especially when the spin, which is being placed, on the offense is so patently false. Then too, the police have better things to do with their time than chase men for crimes committed perhaps forty years before. And for which the penalty has long ago been served, and have long ago been forgotten, except deep inside some musty archive. Perhaps crimes will be included, which are no longer crimes. In any case, Megan type murders are so rare they are better regarded as one-offs, and the police know this very well. Jeffrey Dahmer killed about 17 young men, but we don't have laws protecting us from Jeffrey Dahmer type murders. And the police are also aware that sex offenders are probably less likely to become murderers than the average citizen. When I was in prison I remember reading a press article by someone - in America, where else? Maintaining that a paedophile's first taste of sex puts him on a path which will inevitably lead to murder; as his lusts increase and demand more and more extreme measures for satisfaction. Murder, you see, is the ultimate thrill in an activity that is basically about the infliction of pain. I would think that it was the writer who was off-beam; because, even in the area of murder, thrill murders are so much a rarity that the possibility exists mostly in fiction. Yet, it is persons like this who have such a great influence on the law, and whose dictums seem to be accepted by the psychs without question. Another practical point about the Megan Law is that it makes sex offenders forever unemployable and a burden on the state; whereas it is a major aim of all prison administrations that inmates should be employable when they come out. In short, Megan's Law is bound to be unpopular with prison administrations because it sinks their rehabilitation programs and policies. They would also be aware that it is a legal fiction that all sex offences are crimes of violence; whereas, the reality is that only a very tiny proportion contains even the smallest violence ingredient. Also, the Megan Law tends to assume the truth and inevitability of the escalation theory of violent crime, which assumes that violence has an addictive quality, which demands bigger end ever bigger satisfaction, and that thrill is the active and major ingredient in violent crime. The theory demands longer and closer argumentation; and is, I suggest, open to serious challenge.

I am going to interrupt my line of argument with, as they would say on television, a news flash. In the Sydney Star Observer of 30/4/98, on page 3, is a story, headlined "Nowra man sentenced for sex with 16 year old". The story goes on to say, "Hutton met the 16-year- old" at a beat in Nowra, and three weeks later began a six-week-long sexual relationship with him.

"In Nowra District Court, the Crown Prosecutor alleged Hutton had taken advantage of the young man by giving him alcohol and marijuana and providing pornographic videos; allegations denied by Hutton. Chris Hammond, for Hutton, told the court there were no aggravating circumstances surrounding the case, there was no violence and the acts were consensual, and suggested a community service order would be an appropriate sentence."

In fact, he got three years four months gaol, with a two and half year's minimum term. This is exactly what I got. 40/30 months is a round figure, and being an over three year sentence, he doesn't get out automatically at the end of his minimum term. But, has to apply for parole; which may, or may not, be granted, or not granted in full. Successful applications have to be accompanied by a favorable psych report, and an explicit recommendation that they be granted by the prison parole officer. In general, he will have given consideration to favorable work, education, and wing (conduct) reports. In other words, for the person with an over three-year head-sentence, parole has to be earned. A favorable psych report requires attendance at what was in my time called SOAP, sexual offenders assessment program. This is a program designed for the treatment of violent offenders. The inmate will start by protesting that there was no violence and the acts were consensual, but the psychs will be insisting that he is in "denial." And this he will have to give up and confess and accept his guilt to their satisfaction, before he will be granted the required report. I found this part especially hard, because it involved putting myself down, and it was just not true. But, I got around it by submitting a written confession, which confessed to just about everything but violence; and, I think it got through because the psychs were so dazzled by what it contained that they did not notice what it did not. The interested reader will find a copy in Razorwire. It's all a game, and survival is about learning the rules and abiding by them, or seeming to. In. any case, it is all about crushing the spirit and making docile and obedient citizens. Whatever theories the Royal Commission put forward about types of psychotherapy, the reality is that the power the psychs had to 'manage' derived from their being accepted by their inmate clients as being social superiors and in positions of power. With the mechanism used being our instinct to obey our social superiors; which is also being invoked in hypnotism and posthypnotic suggestion.

The over-three-year sentence puts Mr. Hutton into the category of the serious criminal offender. Is it over the top? Yes indeed! Especially in view of the Royal Commission's recommendation that the age-of-consent be 16. Which would make it seem, in the mind of a reasonable person, that Counsel's submission of a community service order would indeed be the appropriate sentence. He has broken the eleventh commandment, and he has pleaded guilty to breaking the law, so I suppose he has to get something. But, I don't like his chances at the Criminal Court of Appeal. Whatever reasonable people like you and I may think, it is the media personalities, who have the day, and three and a quarter years seems to be the tariff rate for this category of offense - with no priors! As for the consent issue, their Honours will argue that "children have to be protected from themselves". Bullshit! Even the Royal Commissioner, who otherwise gave few signs of being a liberal thinker, thought the present age-of-consent unrealistic. What is at the back of the judges' minds when they use the expression "children have to be protected from themselves"? On the 7.30 Report (ABC. 5/5/98) was a story of an essentially the same class of offender transferring his house to his brother for a dollar in order to avoid personally paying victims' compensation. He got 16 years, which doesn't make Hutton's chances look good. One wonders how Hutton's deeds came to the attention of the police.

I wonder what role the quest for victim's compensation had in it. The court regard this cases of "homosexual infection" with such horror that the money is paid over without question. For the unscrupulous, it is money for old rope.

There were allegations of a few cans, a joint, and a porn video. These were denied by Hutton - perhaps he only offered tea and bickies - drew a response from the judge, indicating just how far from reality, and how out of touch, he is when it comes to the son of youths who hang out at beats. Particularly those who are "rent". We are not explicitly told this particular boy was rent, but there is a fair chance he was. There is a fair chance that it was disappointment over money, which sent him to the police. Yet, in the judge's mind, he was an innocent child led astray by the evil Hutton with the aid of "alcohol and marijuana", and pornographic videos. In similar circumstances I don't think I would be offering even a cup of tea.

And another point about the sentencing: Hutton had pleaded guilty, and what was reported was the sentencing hearing. The courts are supposed to hand down lesser sentences for guilty pleas. Don't count on it.

At the end of the story, the solicitor John Marsden is quoted as saying, "If the gay community is not prepared to stand up and be counted, they will again see their members being jailed on the basis of morality rather then on the basis of criminal behavior". John, I have news for you. Members of the gay community are already being jailed on the basis of morality, but disguised as criminal behavior. The lesbian community is not concerned because it is rather enjoying it as a successful attack on men. And the gay community is not concerned because the lesbians now dominate it, and it is only concerned with the business - and I use this word purposely - of running the annual Gay and Lesbian Mardi Gras. Anyway, it is not concerned because it differentiates itself absolutely from paedophiles. Go on hiding your head in the sand, brothers. But don't complain if sooner or later you get a great big kick in the arse. Marsden's right you know!

It occurs to me that there could be one circumstance where the escalation could be applicable to sex offenders. But, the initiating event is not the offense, but what has arisen out of it; the arrest, the trial, the imprisonment, and, above all else, the psychological treatments and pressures to which the offender has been subjected. He will have come to associate enormous fear and anxiety with sex and love; but, since all the measures taken against him have been violent in nature, he will have learnt that violence is normal and acceptable. The very antipathy between love and violence implies that, when love is punished, the nod is being given to violence and hatred. I know that, after my own experience, the prospect of love and sex fills me with fear and dread; but that nastiness on my part actually grants me the positive reward of respect. I am aware, also, that my personal safety tends to necessitate that I generate a certain amount of fear; and I know that closeness to anybody is very, very dangerous. I gave my love and trust to somebody, and I suffered betrayal and abuse. So, it is extremely unlikely I will ever allow anybody to be close to me in future. And I am acutely aware that my experience has the approval of everybody who has a voice in our community. I write, but I can well understand how this class of experience can drive former inmates to crimes of violence for the sake of violence. Yes, the system is generating the very same monsters, which it purports to seek protection from. I will be dealing further with this matter in a later chapter, when I present the reader with some basic concepts about the nature of the mind.

Women are having a role in all this. They talk endlessly about the need to protect their children from vicious and violent paedophiles. But I suspect a hidden agenda in this. Women need men far more than men need women, because of their biological imperative to be mothers. The modern woman aspires to the highest offices in the land. But she also wants to experience being a mother. It also seems that lesbians are not immune from this desire, even though, it normally, involves the undesired man bit; well, it always does, even when they are medically fertilized. Marriage matters a lot to most women, even though, again, they may not feel romantically attracted to men. The 1950s, the decade when the rage for marriage was at its height, was also the decade when homophobia was at its height. Women felt betrayed and cheated when they saw a man chasing another man, instead of them. They had a desperate need for men for themselves, if only for social reasons. Even today, when opportunities for women have expended enormously, it is only out-of-the-closet lesbians who don't see marriage as a desirable goal, and who don't look upon unmarried women as having, in some sense, failed. So, women tend to see homosexual men as causing them injury. When they see a homosexual man as actually preferring boys, and young boys at that, they see him as adding insult to injury. I am suggesting that the vituperation that paedophiles receive, as being labeled not only evil but, even worse, violent persons, is the expression of rage and desire for vengeance of the women. The women are perfectly aware that most paeds are not a danger to their children; but they went an excuse for such measures as Megan's Law in order that life for them will be as hard as possible.

It seems to me that, when compensation is sought, it is subconsciously felt as a substitute for the continuing presence of the perpetrator; who, very likely, has helped to bring his problems on himself by abandoning his "victims". It wasn't his love, which was the problem but his subsequent withdrawal of that love. That paeds tend to abandon their boys was a complaint made several times in the Royal Commission's report.

The Royal Commission very speedily came to the conclusion that there was nothing in the high-level paedophile conspiracy theory, and passed to what it wanted to be its real concern, which was to tighten and strengthen the law against paedophiles in general. But, did it come to its prior conclusion altogether too enthusiastically and speedily so much so as to give rise to the suspicion that it was protecting its own kind?

I must confess to feeling cynical about system people. They seem to be always proclaiming their moral purity end superiority. All through the term of the Royal Commission, politicians paraded, judges paraded, prominent lawyers paraded, psychs paraded, media personalities paraded, their virtue. All, without exception, expressed their profound horror of paedophiles, and disgust at all their works; and the strongest possible implication was that they were not like this and that in their moral purity, and in their normality, they held the high ground. Well, when somebody goes to such lengths to convince me that he is my moral superior, I don't believe him. I am rather reminded of my home invader, whose parting words you remember were, "I always go with girls. They are always above the age-of-consent. I have never broken the law". He was a rent-boy and drug addict, and well known to the police; and I do not doubt for a moment that they knew all along who it was. Yet, they indicated they were impressed by the parting words. I was the criminal, not him; and it was even suggested that his trembling hands were from anger and indignation at my supposed behavior. I am not suggesting the police were in bad faith. Rather, even against their knowledge, they were impressed, with his claims to moral purity and superiority. Important to this psychology was the fact that he had been in the position of power; for it seems to be deeply programmed in our minds to feel that might is right. I even suspect they viewed his theft of my camera gear, not as theft, but as righteous confiscation. He claimed to protect children. Yet it seems he was selling drugs to the kids at the local high school. The police heard the first, but didn't seem to be terribly concerned about the second. If you say you protect children and say you are straight, you must be all right.

Our social psychological make-up is such that we tend to believe in what those who have power and authority over us say. So, we find it hard to believe that some of those people, who tell us, till our ears are pink, they hate paedophiles, are paedophiles. The system, itself, finds it hard to believe that some of its members are paedophiles. After all, members of the system do not tell lies do they? Yet, in spite of all this, coming mostly from the rent-boys, which, as a class, is in the best position to know that some high-ranking individuals are their regular clienteles. With the rare exceptions - mostly from academia - members of the system do not feel themselves free to come out of the closet. The system is the tribe of those who have power and influence in the community. The members know one another; and, when a relevant position falls due, the network makes sure that one of their own kind fills the vacancy. As a tribe, the system holds certain views, and attitudes. I have already detailed, at considerable length, the beliefs of the system on homosexuality. Anybody, who does not subscribe to these beliefs, never makes it to the short list, no matter what his qualifications may be. John Marsden made it to the system, then came out of his closet. I agree with him, that much of the vituperation expressed towards him has come this fact, and the consequent desire to drive him out. In the Report's chapter on the sins of the churches, the Commissioner was particularly angry about the belief of some priests that their celibacy vows prohibit them from sexual conduct with females. But not from sexual conduct absolutely; and so it is not a mortal sin to have sex with altar boys. "Wrong, wrong, wrong," said Wood; with all the confidence and certainty of somebody who has personally heard it come out of the Deity's mouth. I am free to infer that dissenting voices have been heard coming from the Church, and that appropriate measures have been taken to stifle them. Wood recommended that no mercy should be shown towards these people.

The system's homosexuals like rent-boy sex because of its anonymity. The boys are picked up. Money is exchanged. And. the sex takes place in a shooting gallery. Saying, "I always demand ID" is rubbish. The last thing that both the boys and the clientele want known is their respective identities. The boys, to any inquiry about their age, will say they are 18, no matter what their actual age may be. These boys are always 18. Mind you, whilst there might be some pretty young looking eighteens around, there are also some who present as having had a hard life - anyway. In general rent-boys are safe. Judges don't go around wearing their wigs and gowns; and dressed in a scruffy coat and blue jeans, who's to know? This idea occurred to me with force when witnesses to the Royal Commission claimed to have recognized judges at Costellos the notorious boy brothel, closed in, or about, 1982. The witness would need to have known the judge pretty well in his private life to be able to have made such a claim. Gay circles, in general, are very anonymous. Even at the regular events I attend, and always attended by much the same crowd, I can identify very few people by name.

These system men hate the sex they have with the rent-boys, because they are still subscribing to the official system position on homosexuality. And they, themselves, have been contaminated by paedophiles when they were children; which is why they really hate paedophiles. They are trembling before the sight of the Lord, and are full of guilt and self-doubt, and they blame the person who they think has caused their condition. They have no qualms about the rent-boys, no matter what the age, because you can't get wet twice, and these boys are already wet. And, because sex with a rent-boy doesn't touch the emotions, it doesn't touch the soul. Love touches and contaminates the soul; and, in these contacts, love is very carefully avoided. But, sex without emotional involvement is felt, deep down, as a rejection. In these contacts, both sides are really rejecting one another. Both sides hate one another and themselves. No wonder the boys are usually drug-addicts. If, by chance, a rent-boy does learn the identity of his client - and I think word does get around amongst the boys themselves about who their clients are - he would best not go to the police. Because enormous reputations and sums of money are in jeopardy, and the boy would be running the grave risk of being fitted with a canvas suit and taken for a short sea trip. Nobody would know. He wouldn't even be missed. I would be surprised if any inquires were made were I to disappear. When I went into gaol, nobody in the gay community knew - or cared. Which is one reason why I take care to maintain friendships outside of the community; even though the persons concerned may not be entirely accepting. Rent-boys are a drifting population, and they drift in and they drift out. So, even if you did care, where would you start? Money is a two-edged sword. It buys the rent-boys, but it can also be used to buy, or otherwise ensure, silence.

The Royal Commission's first job was to hose down the persistent rumors that members of its tribe were engaged in unbecoming conduct specifically, that they were buying immunity from police attention by corrupt payments. They were supposed to be organized into a network, whose basic function was to make these payments and get protection.

But rumors are not good enough evidence to take into court. It was all hearsay, and much of it remote hearsay at that. About the most specific evidence involved David Yeldham. But, when it came down to it, it seems he was only seen leaving a toilet cubicle with another man. It is not against the law to go into a cubicle with another man. Maybe the judge was using the place as his chambers. There was also some evidence that he attempted to pick up an illegal class of male - to put the matter as delicately as possible. But, who is to prove that he was, indeed, trying to make a pickup. And making a pickup is still one step from attempting an act of indecency, which is the crime. The only person who is in a real position to give evidence in these matters is the "victim", and none of the former judge's "victims" ever came forward. He suicided, which is what is expected of a man of his class and position caught with his pants down. He suicided before the real damage was done; and it would have been done, because the Royal Commission would have been compelled to have continued its inquires in public. He went out like a gentleman, and he was officially farewelled at the Kings Street Church with his honor a little soiled perhaps, but not destroyed. Oscar Wilde went to prison. But probably it was felt that he too should have suicided. In the event, he was banished forever from the circles in which he used to mix. The media recorded at least seven suicides resulting directly from the Royal Commission, and during its sittings. John Marsden has said there were many more, perhaps up to three times that number. These gentlemen did the right thing; before the Commission was forced to examine allegations made against them. Which, I suggest, was the means by which the system was able to present a clean sheet, and refute the allegations made against it. Heads on plates were demanded, and heads on plates were given, but not of people who would have been considered members of the system.

The heads we got were of "Dolly" Dunn and Phil Bell, Both of whom fled overseas, and both of whom the system pursued relentlessly, and who are now both back in Australia, and awaiting trial. How they are going to receive fair trials with the amount and type of publicity they have received is not clear. Both have pleaded not guilty. Arising from the proceedings of the Commission apparently has come some hundreds of prosecutions; but no publicity has been given to these cases for fear of jeopardizing their outcome. Aptly, the Royal Commission has been called the Royal Inquisition.

It has been alleged that the Royal Commission report is a whitewash. I would agree. But I would also be inclined to qualify the degree of deliberate intent, which this implies. We see what we expect to see. This is a well-known law of psychology. When the Special Branch was informed of what had been observed of Judge Yeldham's behavior, it was inclined to dismiss the information. I do not think this was corruption. Rather, I see it as an expression of the Special Branch's disinclination to believe that a judge could behave in such a manner. Especially in the light of the judge's own denial and affirmations of moral rectitude, which he maintained up to just hours before his death; and which were later maintained by his family. And when he had fronted Commissioner Wood, the Commissioner had himself believed him. Even today, when push comes to shove, can we really be absolutely certain he was not right? Only the flea that lived in the late judge's pubic hairs knows the answer. I believe that Justice Wood had genuine difficulty in believing members of his class can indulge in homosexual behavior, let alone paedophile behavior. In the event, the Commission was able to clear its class of allegations of sexual misconduct, and to continue to be able to maintain its authority; which, in its view, was probably what the exercise was about.

Having got this out of the way, the Commission felt itself free to pursue what it saw as its real business, the pursuit and destruction of paedophiles, and ultimately the destruction of homosexuality, in the general population. The system is the ruling-class, and sees itself as answerable to God for the thoughts and conduct of the general community. What it does, it does in the light of what it sees as its duty. When you are a member of the system, you are well rewarded for doing your duty. The general community also has to do its duty, as prescribed by the system, but it is not well rewarded, and has to be cajoled by the stick. It is the function, and duty, of the system to apply the stick. In its second stage of the inquiry, the Royal Commission was concerned with the details of applying the stick in its quest for a morally clean, heterosexual state. It sees the key to the problem as paedophilia; so it addressed itself to the questions: who are the paedophiles, and how can they be identified. What measures can be taken against paedophiles, both in the punishment and treatment areas. What measures are needed to protect children. The nature of public awareness programs needed. The Commission made inquires into the various church, government, and semi-government agencies that are concerned with the education and upbringing of children. It concerned itself with the juvenile justice system, and the problem of "children who abuse other children". Lastly, it made various recommendations to tighten up and expand police procedures to increase its effectiveness with dealing with "child sexual abuse". It recommended the establishment of a childrens’ commissioner, whose primary function will be to investigate anybody who has dealings with children, and to issue unacceptable risk certificates where appropriate. Effectively, the issue of such a certificate will prohibit the subject person from any activities that bring him into contact, or potentially bring him into contact, with children. Especially targeted are scoutmasters and church youth leaders. Presumably, any person who disobeys the prohibition will incur a prison penalty. So, you don't have to do anything to go to prison; you just have to be found in a position where you might. It seems to me that this offends against the fundamental justice principle that a person has had to be proved to have committed a criminal act before he can be punished. But surely disobeying the prohibition is the criminal act? Well, mm. All persons convicted of a paedophile offense will be automatically issued with the certificate. I would be issued with one. Would I be allowed to serve in a restaurant, which is patronized by children? Are parents included? Apparently not, because the Royal Commission did not address itself to what was psychology's great preoccupation a decade ago, incest. But, not only convicted paedophiles are included, included are persons even suspected of offending. Automatically Would be included anybody who has been charged with an offense, and acquitted. Again, a fundamental justice issue is raised. But, much wider than this, the net would include anybody who has, at any time, been a subject of rumor. And, in the gay community, you would be completely at the mercy of any vicious queen who feels she has an ax to grind. Members of the former gay group Icebreakers will know what I am referring to.

In general, if the Royal Commission's recommendations are fully implemented, we will be coming to live in what is virtually a police state. The worrying thing is that not only is the state being given enormous powers to investigate paedophile behavior, it is being given enormous powers to investigate any kind of personal behavior at all, and any behavior at all which the state can conceivably see as a threat. By the state, of course, I mean the system. I am a critical thinker and writer; and, apart from anything about paedophilia, this would make me a target. The fact that I am a paedophile is a foot in the door, and anything I write at all is likely to be destroyed. The Royal Commission has made it very clear that it did not approve of the expression of any ideas about paedophilia other than its own. It made it very clear that it wanted all organizations and groups concerned with this object to be investigated and destroyed. Once one's group has been declared a seditious organization, it will be destroyed; as indeed BLAZE - given a couple of pages in the report - was. The point is that anybody critical of the system could also be critical of its attitude to paedophilia, and anybody critical of its attitude to paedophilia could also be critical of other matters, and personalities; and would be a dangerous person to have around.

With the end of the Soviet Union - when was it, 1992? - came the end of the Cold War, and the need to have a spy organization devoted to the collection of files on persons perceived as having seditious tendencies. There were apparently a number of organizations of which ASIO was one. The previously alluded to Special Branch was another. These were primarily concerned with keeping an eye on the lefties; and if you took part in a demo, your photo would be taken and a file opened on you. These files would be routinely searched whenever a person applied for a sensitive position, like in Defense. Presumably, had war been declared with the Soviet Union, all the persons with files on them would have been hurried off to internment camps. But, apart from the Cold War, it was a way of keeping an eye on people, and a way of making sure no "undesirables" were allowed to join the system. It was probably no accident that I failed in my practice teaching. People like me would not have been allowed into the teaching profession where we are able to influence children in their formative years. I may not have been the best disciplinarian in the world, but I suspect my supervisors, sitting at the back of my classes, were inciting the kids to make life as hard for me as possible. After being admired as a solicitor, I had to do three years in an employed capacity before getting my full practicing certificate. I had no luck whatsoever, and was even dismissed from a community legal center on a trumped-up charge of sexually harassing one of the female volunteers, for Christ's sake. I am capable of almost anything but that. Eventually, I got a job as a filing clerk in an insurance company. This is a job normally open to School Certificate graduates, and a sort of modern equivalent of the office boy. The system did not object, but care was taken to withhold any recognition of my legal qualifications. I saved the company from further embarrassment by going to prison. I wasn't able to get any job at all after leaving prison. But, fortunately for me, I had reached the ripe old age of sixty, and was eligible for the mature-age-allowance, a sort of early old-age pension. It reminded me of the fate of Winston in George Orwell's 1984. 1 am aware I am closely watched.

But actually, I think all this has been for the best. I doubt whether I would ever have made a teacher. The first lesson a teacher has to give when he first enters a classroom is who's boss. No bellowing or "tricks of the trade", just a quiet manner and the right body language. A teacher needs to start his career as soon as possible after leaving school, in order that he should not lose touch with the prevailing school culture. I was over fifty, and. I had had thirty years of experience merely obeying orders. This is not good for a student teacher. It is an interesting observation that I was accused of being authoritarian; which like the accusation of making a pass at the female volunteer at the community legal aid center turned the real situation on its head. Kids are supposed to show their disapproval of authoritarian teachers by playing-up. Female law students are supposed to be weak, and vulnerable to harassment by powerful old males, who prey on them at community legal aid offices. This is ideological bullshit. But good enough to be thrown at anybody disapproved of by the system, and which the system wants to be rid of. After all, whether it is bullshit or not, you still have to go. Anyway, I am destined to be where I am at the moment, and I am destined to be doing what I am doing; so, I am thankful for what has occurred to me, even though it hurt at the time.. Ideological fashions change and so will the accusations. I am prepared for whatever comes along. I wouldn't have been any happier being a suburban solicitor than being a filing clerk. The only place in law to be is at the Bar. And to be at the Bar, you don't merely have to be approved of by the system, you have to be right in the middle of it. It is almost the case that you have to be born into it. My rightful place in the law is to be a critic and writer, and this is what I am. It is a thought that not only would have been no happier being a suburban solicitor than being a filing clerk, but I may well have been no better remunerated. After a short stint as an insurance claims officer, I went to prison for two and a half years; and this is where I got my real practical legal education.

But, let us get on. I will be dealing with the various actors on the paedophile stage, just as the report of the Royal Commission has done; and with special reference to that document. But I will start with that body which is not dealt with in the Report, for obvious reasons. This body is the judiciary. As a class, it is; which is to say, its life is devoted to duty, rather than pleasure. The duty of the judges is to lead the community, and be a good example to it in the matters of good conduct and morality. Their duty as judges is to administer the law of New South Wales fairly and impartially. I do not know whether their oath mentions God now; but there is little doubt that it once did and that they still see themselves as ultimately beholden to God in matters of the moral law. They are embarrassed by the secular law of homosexuality, and see it as their duty to "distinguish" and otherwise get around the law as far as it is within their power. "OK, its legal; but just step one inch out of line, and we have you". Hence, the extremely harsh sentences handed down for paedophile offenses, and the tongue-lashings, which accompany them.

Duty dominates the personal lives of the judges. They marry for duty. They have little choice about whom they marry. The youth group of their parish church supplies the girl. Her parents approve of him, and his parents approve of her. There are women judges; but I would guess that everything that I can say about the men applies equally to them, with only the appropriate changes in the gender language. In any case, the future judge will be well into his twenties before he is suitably qualified and well enough established at the Bar to think of marriage. But, the time being ripe, he will be marrying his childhood sweetheart. It will not be romantic love; just a suitable union of similar people. The sexual preferences of the parties are irrelevant; because the preferences are not being made for sexual or emotional reasons. If the couple is emotionally and sexually compatible, and gets that pleasure in its company we call love, it is a bonus. But, it may also be accompanied with guilt; because the judges would consider pleasure to be a sin in the eyes of God.. All of this is a prescription for the incompatible heterosexual unions of gays, and one is left to wonder how much of the hatred judges feel towards homosexuals stems from what they are rejecting in themselves. At another level, the judges hates homosexuals because they are moral degenerates, who put pleasure before duty, and are the corrupters of society, just like a disease. They would like to put all homosexuals behind bars forever, to protect the community. They do their best by giving extremely long sentences to paedophiles. Judges are very conscious of hierarchy, and the belief that the higher up you are, the closer you are to God. We see what we expect to see, and this applies even to judges. When Justice Wood looked at his fellow judges, he would have found it much harder to see transgressions than, say, in myself. I am lower in the hierarchy, and I would be expected to be of less moral value.

The bulk of the Report is given up to the delineation of the characteristics of paedophiles and their devious ways, in order that they may be better identified and destroyed. The Royal Commission called many psychologists and psychiatrists as expert witnesses; even having experts hooked up by satellite from overseas. It might have saved the immense time and expense involved in this.

I have to hand a little book, which I bought at the neighborhood op-shop for one dollar. It is by a David A. Tomb, and is called Psychiatry or the House Officer (Williams and Wilkins, Baltimore et al, 1984).

I looked up "Pedophilia" - the Americans drop the "a". "These patients repeatedly approach prepubertal children sexually (touch, explore, mutually masturbate, occasionally intercourse). They are usually timid, inadequate males who know the child involved (neighbor, relative). Three general types are recognized: heterosexual pedophilia (prefers preadolescent girls), homosexual pedophilia (prefers early teenage boys) - most resistant to therapy, and mixed pedophilia (younger children, either sex). Don't confuse with child molestation due to decreased impulse control (e.g., intoxication, retardation, and psychosis) or a one-time event (e.g., due to loneliness or following a marital crisis). Behavior modification is the treatment of choice." We need to look up "Behavior modification", and this is what we find:

"Over the last twenty years behavior therapy has become one of the major therapeutic modalities available to psychiatrists. It is based on learning theory that postulates that problem behaviors, i.e. almost any of the manifestations of psychiatric conditions, are involuntarily acquired- due to inappropriate learning. Therapy concentrates on changing behavior (behavioral modification) rather than changing unconscious or conscious thought patterns and to that end, it is very directive (i.e. patient receives much instruction and direction). Specific techniques to facilitate those changes include the following. Operant conditioning: These therapeutic techniques are based on careful evaluation and modification of the antecedents and consequences of a patient's behavior. Desired behavior is encouraged by positive reinforcement and discouraged by negative reinforcement. These new ways of responding to the patient can be taught to the people who live with the patient or, for inpatients, may take the form of a token economy.

"Aversion therapy: A patient is given an unpleasant aversive stimulus (e.g. an electric shock, loud sound) when his behavior is undesirable. Some of these procedures have been legally discouraged. An alternative technique, covert sensitization, is less objectionable since it uses the patient's unpleasant thought associations as the aversion stimulus.

"Systematic Desensitization: I think this was mentioned in the report. If the pedophile is exposed to the supervised company of children, he will learn to accept their company without becoming sexually aroused.

"Although behavior modification has been successful in treating some kinds of conditions (e.g., phobias, sexual deviance, regressive behavior), it has been criticized for not considering thought processes. This has led to broader conceptualization including Cognitive Behavioral Modification".

Tomb does not enlarge on this latter therapy, but it was the favorite of the Commission's, and is based on the idea that behaviors come from ideas and beliefs. If I do not believe that sex with a child is harmful to the child, and indeed believe it is beneficial, then I will have sex with the child. But, if I can be brought to understand - to know - to "cognate" - that the act is harmful to the child, I will desist. This assumes I am a person who feels goodwill towards children; an assumption which is generally not held of paedophiles. The trouble is that the preferential paedophile - the variety of paed to which this therapy is usually directed - needs to actually see the harm done to the child, which, of course, is impossible, because the paed is in prison; and generally prohibited all contact with the child absolutely. And, this continues after release; I live moderately near my "victims", but, during the past five years, have only viewed them on rare occasions, have not spoken to them, and I do not know of their fate. The paed has to go on what the psychs tell him; and even the most moronic paed will suspect the source is tainted. It is not hard to understand that the child has been harmed, but by hostile social pressures and attitudes, and by the psychological and legal processes to which he has been subjected - called, in the jargon, systems abuse. My very separation from the boys is harmful to them, but it is something about which I can do nothing. Cognitive therapy, in this situation, cannot modify behavior, because the premises are just not true; and all the judges, all the psychologists, and all the Bibles in the world piled on top of one another, cannot make the situation otherwise. Cognitive therapy will work if, say the problem is that the prison inmate attacks black people because he believes that they are carriers of some noxious disease. When the inmate is convinced that they are not carriers of the disease, he will (hopefully) cease to attack them, and cease the violent behavior that has brought him to prison. The Nazi's behavior towards the Jews was based on false beliefs. Expose the beliefs for the lies they are, and the behavior will be changed. No, in the case of the Nazis it would not have been. The beliefs were rationalizations and justifications for something they wanted to do anyway. They got a kick out of genocide. I have been writing a lot about the system's hatred of homosexuality; and its rationalization and justification. These matters are important. But the bottom line is that it likes asserting its power, and it gets a kick out of destroying the lives of a section of the people in its power. The icing on the cake is important; but its removal will still leave the cake. The Nazis and the system are nasties; but, on the other side of the ledger, the bottom line for paeds is that they like boys, and that they have memories of sharing intense sexual enjoyment with them. The consequences may be horrible, but paeds are aware that it is the psychs, and the system, which they represent, that is the problem.

Of the therapies mentioned, covert sensitization - mentioned in the Report - is probably the most effective. It is fear of fear itself. The anxiety I felt in the period leading up to my sentencing was so awful that I never want to go through it again; and it will always be associated with the experience of sex with a boy. And indeed with any kind of sexual experience at all. The "treatment" would be most effective with paeds whose ability to experience interpersonal relationships is already impaired. I am basically a shy fearful person anyway. My offenses were very untypical behavior, in that I asserted an initiative. Paeds with more robust - let's face it healthier - personalities will be more resistant to even this therapy. If the personality is sufficiently weak, it will destroy it completely. This is what the psychs are doing. I wonder if it occurs to them that they just might be creating people who are really dangerous.

In the long quotation above, we met all the varieties of paedophile delineated in the Report. Directly targeted was the preferential paedophile. All the other types are considered to be, to a greater or lesser extent, ill. The preferential paedophile is judged to be not mad but bad, and, as such, not susceptible to therapy. He can only be deterred by punishment, and failing this, should be subjected to preventative detention. Because a fundamental - the fundamental - principle of our criminal law is that punishment can only be handed down for a crime proved to have been committed by the accused, preventive detention is not in favor in our criminal justice system. It could be argued that preventive detention is not punishment. In which case it is outside the ambit of the law. But, considered as an administrative measure, it would be considered exceedingly oppressive, and striking at the heart of our freedom from executive rule. Recently, the NSW parliament tried to keep a prison inmate, Kable, in custody after his sentence had expired. But the attempt failed in the High Court. Only a lawful decision by the judiciary can remove our right to freedom from detention.

Two things distinguish the preferential paedophile from other varieties noted by the Royal Commission; they truly love boys, and they derive their identity from their sexual preference. A gay gets his identity from his sexual preference, but he is distinguished from a paedophile because he "always asks for ID", and rejects the holder if an age of less than 18 is disclosed. I suspect gays reject the under-18s - and presumably support 18 as being the legal age-of-consent - because they feel enormous guilt about their sexuality, and feel good about not visiting it upon the young. That is, unless they are bullshit artists and that the only real difference between a gay and a preferential paedophile is that the latter is honest. I suspect that it is this question of identity, which really protects the preferential paedophile from psychological "therapy". Existentialism taught us that we have essence, but to truly exist, and be something, we need to commit ourselves to some cause, which, to us, is truth; and be prepared to fight and suffer for that cause. Our identity is what is conferred upon by the commitment. For a preferential paedophile, his identity - his sense of being a real person - comes from his love of boys. No matter how many mealy mouthed psychologists are screaming at him, and no matter how much punishment he has to endure, he will not be giving up this most precious of possessions. For a preferential paedophile, his identity is about sex, but a lot more. And anyway, the bottom line is how can love be wrong? All sexual therapy in gaol assumes that the offense has been one of violent sex. If you are truly a sadist, who gets your pleasure from using your power to exploit and inflict pain and humiliation upon those weaker than you are, you will be on the same wavelength as the psychologists who conduct these therapies. To be a psychologist, especially a prison psychologist is to be about power; and I can't help wondering about the personal sex lives of these people. I wonder if they dream about getting dressed up in leather and using a whip. The preferential paedophile finds this sort of thing wholly foreign and incomprehensible; and this lack of rapport is one of the reasons the psychs hate him. Contrary to whatever Tombs may have said, preferential paedophiles are not usually timid and inadequate - at least not the successful ones. Which raises a point: the only people available for clinical study are unsuccessful people, and who are presented, or like to present themselves, as sick. Bad luck can land the successful paedophile in gaol, but it is generally the unsuccessful ones who find themselves in this situation.

Psychs talk a lot about persons who are "inadequate", without going into details about what they mean. In the wild, it is only the top males who get the females, whilst the less than top males - the inadequate males - are driven away. I sense that what the psychs are really saying is that, if you are an "inadequate" male, you are not entitled to sex at all, and that if you "presume", you should be punished. To these psychs, it is being inadequate which is the real crime, and not whatever the law book may say. The psychs could be doing exactly the same thing themselves. But they are justified, because they are top of the pile. Sufficient to say, I have known preferential paedophiles who are not at all timid and inadequate. And timidity and inadequacy does not seem to have characterized those paeds paraded before the Royal Commission. "Manipulative", "devious", "clever," "intransigent", these are the words most usually used to describe the preferential paedophile. He has to be all of these things if he is to survive.

Much more to the psychs' liking is the fixated paedophile. The Report said of him that he knows that what he does is wrong, but he cannot help himself. The fixated paedophile is an obsessive, who is impelled to do his crime against his will. For reasons outlined later in this review, I conclude that he is most likely to be into sadism. For him, paedophilia is about the sadism, for which his normal sexual desire is only the trigger. The Report doesn't actually say this, but I have a strong theoretical basis for making the inference. The fixated paedophile believes paedophilia to be wrong; which, in his case, he is right. He is tuned right into the psychs, who love him - if only because he presents the prospect of being a perpetual client. He is truly contrite and penitent for what he has done, and truly wants to make amends - blah, blah, and blah. To me a fixated paedophile is truly a pitiful creature. But, I can't say that I have ever really met one. I suspect the fixates I have known have been preferentials who have found the key to getting on the right side of the psychs. Which is essential if they are to get out of prison at the end of their minimum terms. In other words they are doing what devious and manipulative paeds are want to do. At least, I suspect this to be the case with my friend, known to the Commission as Dl. The reader will notice, when he reads my submission to the Royal Commission at the end of this volume, that the psychs in Cooma seemed to have a different definition of "fixated" to what the Commission adopted. What the commission called "preferential", Cooma called fixated. At least when I knew him, I don't think Dl appreciated the distinction.

The word "predatory" is also used to refer to the preferential. It is a pejorative word, because it suggests a ravenous wolf. But, in our culture, a man is expected to take the sexual initiative whether the object is a woman or a boy; and men who don't take the initiative are termed "inadequate". But by this discouragement of initiative, the psychs are really conducting a form of castration. Once a man loses the will to take the sexual initiative, he will lose the will to take the initiative in other departments of life as well, including the economic; and will be unable to survive the harsh realities of earning a living outside of the prison walls. The only protection an inmate has from the psychs is an attitude of distance and hostility. Otherwise, for most of us, the psychs carry on their persons the authority of society, and its expectations regarding our conduct. In church, I cannot sing, because of the powerful feeling within me that, if I open my mouth, I will incur the disapproval of those in authority in the congregation, and will be punished. I know I am wrong, and that I am expected to sing, but the fear wells up from within me like a powerful posthypnotic suggestion. I was lucky, on leaving prison that I was within cooee of the retirement whistle being blown. Had I really been expected to find a job, I would have been paralyzed by even the thought of having to ask somebody for one. And, since leaving prison, I have never taken the sexual initiative and I have never had sex.

The next category of paedophile dealt with in the Report, is the situational. His marriage has fallen to pieces, and he has taken to his daughters; and been reported to the police by the estranged wife - this is the paradigm. The situational paedophile is heterosexual; and therefore of no interest to us, and only of marginal interest to the Commission for the sake of form. He is tearfully contrite, and the psychs love him as one of themselves. The point is raised about to what extent this sort of thing is merely an excuse that has the ear of the court. Any excuse that will be heard by the psychs and the court will have its run. The favorite one was, and perhaps still is, that, "I was sexually abused as a child".

The next category on my list - I didn't buy the Report, but took notes from it at the NSW Public Library - is the regressed paedophile. He really prefers adults, but children were more available. I use the word "children" here, instead of "boys" because there is a suggestion that this category, also, is normally heterosexual. The word "regressed" suggests the old notion that paedophiles are immature, as against the mature stage of sexuality where adults are preferred. It used to be applied to homosexuality, where homosexuality is an immature state as against the mature stage of heterosexuality. This was the interpretation of homosexuality favored by Freud. For a person to be described by a psych as immature is just another way of denigrating him; and psychs will denigrate the paedophile in every way possible. I don't think anybody today really believes homosexuals are immature heterosexuals. If any psych does, then perhaps the appropriate course is to return him from whence he came for further training.

The parapaedophile "prefers" anything. For such 'a person, sex is purely a physical release. I would suggest that such persons really think all sex to be so sinful that they must avoid all soul involvement to prevent its contamination. But I would not believe these people if they told me they had no preference. Again, we have people who lie to please the psychs. A parapaedophile would be more acceptable to a psych than a true paedophile.

Finally, we have those persons who have offended by reason of being mentally handicapped, or by reason of having an organic brain disease, or by reason of being adversely effected by alcohol or drugs. So, again we have the inadequate person; but, this time by virtue of organic disease, rather than through faulty training or character. Again, we meet with the concept of criminal behavior through control of basic impulses. This word "inadequate", which we have already noted to be a favorite of the psychs, can have more than one meaning. The function of prison, and prison based "programs" with both of these varieties of the "inadequate" person is to supply the relevant training, which has been either missing or "inadequate". Children are seen as egocentric, and concerned with nothing beyond the immediate gratification of their wants and desires. The function of social training and conditioning is to make children aware of, and compliant with, the requirements of society. A successful prison term is one where the offender, on release, asks of a sexual impulse whether it is lawful. If the answer is "yes", he controls and denies it. According to this view, it is through punishment that infants and prisoners are trained, and it is fear, which keeps us in order. Perhaps it is, but only when somebody is looking. Incidentally, this view of childhood is very different from the one the psych expounds. When he gets all goggle-eyed about the defiled innocence and goodness of a "victim". It is different, but I suspect more honest. I suspect these psychs don't really like children at all; and are only interested in their discipline and control - threatened by the activity of paedophiles.

This is a good place to discuss an issue, which was considered by the Royal Commission: Who is the prison psychologist's client? Is it the community - the word "community" being used to represent the process of the criminal justice system, supposedly in the interest and name of the community? Is it the victim? Or, is it the inmate himself? When the psych is acting for a third party, there must be problems in the departments of empathy and rapport. When the client is the victim, the psych's intentions would tend in the direction of the infliction of revenge and guilt. In other words, he will want to do harm to the client. When asked, one of the senior psychologists from Cooma Prison said that he did see himself as acting for the victim. I remember him one as being particularly fond of chemical castration. The Commissioner recommended that the inmate be the client. Because (presumably) without empathy and rapport, he believed nothing can be achieved. And, no matter what deceits are employed, the inmate will sooner or later realize the truth. However, it is unavoidable that a third party will always to some extent be present in the person of the community, since a basic role of prison psychologists is to prepare reports for internal prison administration (classification and the like) and for the parole board. This must limit the psychologist's role. As it did in former times with the prison chaplains who used to perform similar functions until relieved of them by the implementation of a recommendation by Justice Nagle in an earlier royal commission into prisons, something which Justice Wood would have been aware of.

But, the neo-Marxist concept of sexuality is never absent in the consideration of any of these paedophile categories. To repeat this concept, and it bears any number of repetitions because of its importance, sexuality is about power, and is about the exploitation of those weaker than the perpetrator, and about their humiliation, and about the infliction of pain on them. Last week, I walked through the Sydney Leather Pride Week fair in Forbes Street. It is an annual event held in the middle of May. Across the roadway was a poster, mentioning just these characteristics. I don't know how serious the leather persons are about these things. But, it does seem that the psychs are deadly in earnest. I can appreciate how power can act as an aphrodisiac. Almost from the first day we have arrived on this earth, we are taught that sex is wrong, and that enjoyment of our bodies of any kind, is wrong. I sometimes wonder how much marriage bells really alter an attitude, which goes so deep. Perhaps this is why there is such a demand for Viagra - the drug that hopefully enables you to get an erection.

Anyway, the appearance of an authority figure on the scene, who just does not ask for, but demands, sex could well overcome all of the mental garbage, and enable the sex to be enjoyed. The psychs talk up the SNAG - Sensitive-New Age-Guy - as their ideal. And they are trying to persuade anything, which departs from this model, to be treated by the community as rape. To a considerable extent, they have succeeded. Again, the suspicion is aroused that the psychs don't like sex, and that the SNAG is their secret weapon. Prison sex offenders' programs are normally directed towards reinforcing the inmate's, inhibitions and reducing his ability to take sexual initiatives. Basically, their aim is mental castration. Boys have an enormous legal clout in the sexual area, and my first reaction to them is fear; but the rare boy with a positive sexual attitude would be very attractive object indeed. I have wondered whether it is this very power which makes him so attractive. This goes directly against the universal opinion of the psychs that the operative factor is his weakness. The ideological Marxist stance of most psychs makes them say they hate power; which is paradoxical in view of the fact that their own operative characteristic is that very power.

The Report is insistent that paedophiles are incorrigible and always re-offend, but a perusal of the Bureau of Crime Statistics figures reveal that the recidivism rate is considerably below that of the other categories of criminal. It seems that up to half of drug users and armed robbers are back in gaol within two years, but that less than seven percent of paedophiles are.

Not all of these are back for the same category of offense. The Royal Commission believes, without hard evidence, that paedophiles re-offend, but are not found out. It is a dodgy conclusion for a legal institution to arrive at. I know there are fairies at the bottom of my garden. Have I seen them? No, fairies are manipulative, devious creatures that do not allow them to be seen; just like paeds. But their presence is felt. The enormous number of homosexuals now appearing in the community has all been infected by paedophiles. So, they must be everywhere. The Report stated that it believes there are more than 40,000 operating in New South Wales. They must be detected, rooted out, and destroyed. It doesn't matter how much effort it takes. Every man must be thoroughly investigated, and there must be a police person - or at least a surveillance camera - in every bedroom. The community must be cleansed, and the homosexuality scourge stopped at its source. You ask, what about the famous witch-hunts of the past? Brother, you have seen nothing. What a marvelous excuse to put the population under the microscope in order to detect thoughts and movements that might be dangerous to the system; and to destroy them. The Report's discussion of BLAZE was just one small indication of its tender regard for free speech and freedom of association.

The grand aim of the Royal Commission - paedophile segment, it said, was the protection of children; so, let's discuss the child. The word "child" suggest a being which is immature, and weak, and in need of protection. That is why the Commission used the word instead of "boy", which suggests something more robust, and perhaps in need of discipline and control. Children are not just weak, they are innocent; being inherently good, and, as yet, untouched and undefiled by contact with the world. They are as good as paedophiles are evil; which is to say they are very good indeed. The Commission's true attitude to children - and particularly boys - is, as I have noted above, probably quite different and certainly the attitude of the government has been so oppressive as to cause protest. But the thing which is in common with all these attitudes is that all possible effort should be made to deprive children of contact with the world - thereby enforcing, or preserving, their innocence. Above all, they should have no contact with sex in any shape or form. TV must be rigidly censored and the Commission recommended the setting up of a police watchdog to censor the Internet, and bring prosecutions when necessary. This Internet thing, in fact, is causing the system a great deal of worry. it's not under the control of Rupert Murdoch. How dare it! It is probably true that kids cause most double on the streets. But there is not a great deal you can do if you are a kid - at least legally.

There are an awful lot of middle-class mums out there who are lonely, and don't want their children to grow up, They want their children to be helpless and dependent upon them for ever; so as to give them the illusion of some kind of function. By the time he is ten, a healthy child is flapping his wings. A wise father once told me that parents should be prepared to accept that by the time their children reach ten years of age, have lost them; and the cozy little nest is no more. God had the same problem with Adam and Eve. He wanted them forever to walk with him in the Garden in the cool of the evening, and to be utterly dependent upon him, and of course, utterly obedient to him. This is the age of innocence. However, they rebelled - tempted by the ancient equivalent of the paedophile - and ate of the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil; which is to say, they had sex. They were no longer innocent but were self-aware, independent and responsible, and were expelled from the Garden into the world, where they had to fend for themselves. God was angry. But he shouldn't have been. It is not mentally healthy to remain a child for life; and persons kept in this condition will suffer from mental illnesses of one kind or another.

My afternoon walks with the dog carry me into an area, which is ruled over by a small gang of twelve-year olds. At first, the kids were very friendly and polite. They had the initiative in social contact. I wouldn't dare say hello to a twelve-year-old off my own bat. But then, something I said gave them the idea that I spent my time at the Cross. Kings Cross is Sydney's area of sleaze. They were horrified. Was this not the place where poofs and prostitutes are to be found? What did I do there? In fact the gay area of Sydney is Oxford Street, and it is a long time since I have been to the Cross. But anyway, the boys made no bones about informing me they found poofs disgusting; and, from the way they talked, their homophobia was the general feeling at the schools they attended. I asked them if they had learnt these things from their teachers, but their reply was vague.

Hang-on, these kids are twelve-year olds. They shouldn't even be thinking about sex, let alone know anything about it. They are innocent, aren't they? They mightn't know much about it, but I would reckon they think of little else. Some sexual references are subject to rigid censorship, but not those coming from Channel Nine. The kids are allowed contact with information about sex, providing it is negative. What they know about sex is what they heard in great quantities from the Royal Commission - crap. This stuff wasn't censored. Kids love power and they know that in this area they have it - provided they put the boot in. They are allowed to say no. They get their kicks from saying no. But they are not allowed to say yes.

But, do they not want to say yes? Well, as soon as they do, they lose their power to destroy, and that's a big sacrifice. But, the thing goes deeper. They just don't want to be kicked out of the Garden of Eden. They don't want to grow up and be sent out into the world to fend for themselves. It is much safer and nicer to be obedient little boys, and parted on the head by fond parents. They are at a dangerous age. If they don't go forward, they will go back - the word is "regress". The effect of heroin is take one back to one's infancy. So, if the regression is strong, there is always a danger they will take to drugs. But, even if they don't, mental illness is what lies at the end of this road - alcoholism perhaps. Sexual experience is what is needed. But if they are too hostile, they won't get it; they would be just too dangerous. If they are masturbating, they will be having fantasies, and their desires will propel them forward. If they aren't, the situation is more serious.

For well over a decade now, there has been a continuous stream of sexual negativity in the media. And the attitudes are being deliberately taught in the schools as part of the program to protect the kids against paedophiles - really anti-gay propaganda. So, it is not surprising these kids have negative attitudes about sex. The worry is that they will become very, very neurotic adults - maybe even psychotic - and will be unable and unwilling to sustain interpersonal relationships. I suggest that, as the years go by, Justice James Wood will be having a lot to answer for. I suggest it is already beginning to bite, with more and more kids being into drugs.

The relationship of the Ginger Meggs Gang to me is not in any ways like Justice James Wood would suppose it to be. In the beginning it was polite; but even then, there was no signs of subservience. I have no evidence that any of its members would readily obey me. Once it got the idea that I "go to the Cross", the last sign of respect went, and the questioning became very critical indeed. According to Wood, all I would have to do for the daks to be dropped would be to give the order, "Drop your daks". "James, how long is it since you have had personal contact with a twelve-year-old?" In James Wood's world, 12-year-olds are all a bit like Little Lord Fauntleroy. The composite personality of the Ginger Meggs Gang is more like Ginger Meggs. Even I was surprised. Brainwashing is surreptitious, and all of us are to some extent susceptible. The latest update on the Ginger Meggs front is revealing. I was asked, "Did I have a girlfriend?" "No". "Did I have a boy-friend?" "No". "Have I had a boyfriend?" "Yes". "Did I have sex with him?" "Yes". Their parting remark, made to each other, was, "He is gay".

Earlier, one of them had asked me whether I thought poofs should be put in gaol. I replied with the information that the age-of-consent is 18. They could have wanted more information on this, and the answer would have been complicated. Strictly speaking, anybody under the age-of-consent who has sex has committed a crime. But the practice is that only the older is charged; and he is termed the perpetrator, and the younger is termed the victim, and is cast in the role of the complainant. And this is so even if it is normally a third party who is the real complainant. Thus, by means of a legal fiction, is a what is essentially a moral crime transmuted into a crime of violence. There is a common misconception that the older party needs to be over 18; but this is not so and there is a considerable section, in the Report, devoted to child "child sexual abusers". It is a fact of' life that older kids teach the younger kids, even in matters of sex; but the psychs are horrified. Did they have childhoods themselves? Well, of course, they are mostly women; who, in earlier times, would probably have entered a convent.

Incidentally, the Ginger Meggs Gang has now left the neighborhood. I suspect that it was a police setup. People like me should be especially wary of friendly gangs of 12-year-olds. It knew too much. Police using 12-year-olds for entrapment purposes? Would not this be an extreme form of child sexual abuse? Indeed it would. Mind you, I have no proof.

The Report said that terrible injury was caused to boys by "child sexual abuse". There would be emotional injury if this contact had been rape - nobody disputes this. But, what has come to the aid of the law is another fiction; that an under the age-of-consent boy is not capable of sexual desire and activity. Hence, in any sexual contact he has had, he has necessarily been raped. But even James Wood, in making his recommendation in the age-of-consent area, admitted this is hogwash. In fact, a boy, whose behavior conformed to the fiction, would be very seriously ill indeed. The system expects boys to be obedient, and compliant to the demands placed upon them by their school and parents. By the time they are 18, they should be fully knowing, not only of their rights, but also of their obligations and duties; including their duties to get married and have children, and to respect and obey their betters. A boy, who has been sexually initiated, will be chaffing against these very restrictive reins; and he will be far from being obedient and respectful to his elders. So, at least in the social environment dominated by the system, there will be much conflict end unhappiness. What we are talking about is very much a middle-class thing. James Wood would have been horrified if his sons had gone on like this. Of course, once the legal process has been initiated, and charges laid, the mental and emotional anguish caused to the kids must be enormous. The system accepts no responsibility for this whatsoever. I was told of the turmoil caused to my own "victims" by their having to reveal and talk about intimate sex details to police officers. It must have been horrible.

Underlying all of the law's attitude to children is the idea that children belong to the state; with all concerned with their upbringing and education being regarded as trustees for the state. Basically, the state requires that its children - its property - must be nurtured and educated to be in its service. In the case of boys, the intention is that, if called upon, they will be prepared to die for the state. In the case of boys, 18 marks the age where he is assumed to be sufficiently educated in his duties and obligations to be released from its protectorship. Women pass to the protectorship of their husbands on marriage; where their duty is to bear children for the state. These are not the literal views of today, but their shadows hang on from history. Sex is considered as a right of property; as trustee for the state, a husband has property rights in his wife. We can see that when a paedophile has sex with a boy, he is seen by the state as assuming property rights, which he is, in fact, usurping. If anybody has sexual rights over boys, it is the state. Which cannot, of course, be exercised. I suggest that this notion of the state having property in boys lies at the roots of its deep-seated hatred of paedophilia, and is apart from religious considerations. Very often we see a man's sex act with a boy referred to as "a breach of trust". Especially is this so if the man is in a position of authority over the boy, and responsible for his training and education. Fathers who have incestuous relations with their sons are breaching their trust; just the same as a trustee for any kind of property would be doing if he used his position to benefit himself, rather than the beneficiary - in this case, the root, or equitable, owner is the state. So, a paedophile is regarded as causing direct injury to the state. I ask the reader to examine within himself what he thinks of all this; in particular, whether he thinks sex should be a property right. And what does he think of the legal fiction of the sexual rights of the state?

A very big problem comes from this extremely artificial, and unwritten, relationship of the state to its children is what its attitude is when they, themselves, break the law.. When you take the view that a boy, up to his eighteenth birthday, is merely passive property, you are faced with the problem of how he can be responsible for his hurtful conduct. One way out has been to deem him to be a victim and to look for an adult perpetrator; and this is the course followed in sex cases. In non-sex cases, car theft for example, there is an attempt to dig into the offender's past for evidence of child sexual abuse; and hence find a perpetrator not directly involved in the present case. So, convenience is just another factor which influences a court's attitude to paedophilia.. But, this sort of thing breaks down in serious crime. In the Liverpool case, when two boys aged about ten (I am writing from memory) killed a four-year-old in particularly brutal circumstances. If my memory is correct, they were judged to be responsible for their act, because they were above the age of criminal discretion, and were treated more or less as adult offenders. So, you are not responsible for your sexual conduct until you are 18, but you are if you commit murder. Of course, we are coming back to the point that sex lies at the heart of what it means to be a human being; and, until a male is 18, he is not a human being. Well, when you perceive you are not regarded as a human being, and have the rights, duties and responsibilities of a human bring, you may well become angry and violent. I suggest a good deal of youth crime stems from this perception. If you are not a human being, then you don't behave like a human being. Perhaps this is what the Liverpool murderers felt, young as they were. The discovery I have made about the Ginger Meggs Gang is that it is made up of boys who are human beings, and not legal constructions. I treat them as persons having the full dignity of human beings. But I wonder what the judge in the Colin Fisk case would say. To be a youth in our community is to live in a kind of legal limbo, subject to many, many prohibitions, but to have no fights; except those pertaining to being a protected person - like a lunatic. No wonder our youth is angry; but the law and the system are inherently quite unable to comprehend the nature and reasons for the anger.

Is the Commission right when it said that paedophiles invariably re-offend? The inference is that they do but are not caught; because the figures show that those who do come back to gaol for the same category of offense are relatively small; and way below, say, the figures for bank robbers. We need to ask what categories of paedophile make up the bulk of those paedophiles gaoled. I would suspect that they would be those categories I would designate pathological, for example the fixated. These are the offenders who do not accept responsibility for their sexual conduct; and so, in the legal sense, are "immature". I suspect it would be mainly lack of opportunity, which would keep these people out of gaol. They have the same problem as the fabulous Mrs. Beeton who had to find ostrich eggs for her ostrich egg omelet. A great deal of effort is made to prevent convicted paedophiles having further contact with children, and this was the thrust of many of the Commission's recommendations. A community is very successful in quarantining boys from contact with unauthorized adults; and very much to the boy's detriment, because of the lack of role models, and inappropriate role-models like women, to help them develop into effective males. Paeds have to display much cunning to get around the barriers. They have to be manipulative and devious.

I suggest that far fewer preferential paedophiles come to gaol; and remember that a preferential paedophile does take responsibility for his sexual conduct. And in considering those that do, we need to take into account the Commission's term "predatory". As the Commission pointed out, not all paeds are predatory. I have met enough paeds, who would come under its umbrella, to know what the term mean. It is a matter of degree. There are paeds whose whole life are boys, boys, and more boys. They are not particular about the means they use to satisfy their insatiable appetite; and they are not averse to using threats and inducements of a monetary kind. There are boy beats; of which, in Sydney, the Wall is the most famous. And, if the paeds are so ready to offer inducement, there are just as many boys ready to accept it. I have already discussed "rent". The cases, which came before the Royal Commission, seemed to be mostly of the rent kind. And the paeds, which came before the commission, appeared to be mostly those who were prepared to offer money and drugs. The rent is nearly always involved in drugs, and so is an object of police attention; and the police offer inducements to it to put in the paeds. So, I should suggest, it is these "predatory" paedophiles that are mostly to be found in gaol.

The non-predatory paed will use his gaol experience to learn some useful lessons; but which do not include obedience of the law. One of these is to be careful of the quality of consent. Any consent obtained by the holding out of inducements like money and drugs, and the threat of the withholding of same, will be rendered infirm by them; and the court will be taking them into consideration as "aggravations" when handing down sentence. He will have learnt to treat his boys as fragile human beings, with all of the desires, feelings and emotions appropriate to it. All to often, the predatory paedophile treats his boys as little more than meat. Our paedophile, who still offends but keeps out of gaol, will have learnt that the best protection against the law is a high quality relationship. He keeps in mind that, in the end, the boy has to make his statement to the police, and be prepared to get into the witness box; and few boys are prepared to hurt someone they respect and love by doing these things. The non-predatory preferential paedophile will have sufficient sexual self-control to withhold his attentions if the conditions are not met. The essence of love is trust, and unless this trust is forthcoming, the apposite word should be "no". I am not, of course encouraging anyone to break the law. All I am doing is suggesting those considerations, which would need to go through the mind of a paed who decides to offend but run minimum chance of getting caught. It used to be thought that rent was the safest way, but it seems not so.

Such is the appetite and the sheer scale of activity, of predatory paedophiles that they cannot long escape public scrutiny; and, as the Commissioner so truly remarked, "People talk". The loner paed is, similarly, in an exposed position. Necessarily, he must search for his boys in public places like beaches where he is under intense public scrutiny, including agents of the CPEA. You have to remember that most people at a beach have nothing to do except watch what is going on around them. So, I suggest it is the predators and loners who get the bulk of CPEA attention. With others, particularly if they take care about the quality of their consent and relationships, - unless they are unlucky - normally escaping attention. I would suggest the Commission was right in its feeling that the paeds, who are actually charged, tried and convicted, are only the tip of the iceberg, with most boys, at some time or another, having sex with a paed. It is a great pity that the nature of the law prevents prison sex offenders' programs from being about good consent and good relationships, and generally, about paedophilia management. Instead of being about prohibition and bullshit, and losing all credibility in the process. Management, in the guise of safe sex education, has been successful in the relative containment of AIDS; and far more successful than prohibition policies would have been. I suggest that, like the drug problem, the paedophile problem is largely of the law's own making. The bulk of the problem is to be found in the area of rent; and rent is very much the child of legal oppression and negativity. My reference to a "management" program does not imply that I think that paedophilia, in itself, is a problem, but 1 am conceding that it can give rise to problems, and that boys are in a particularly vulnerable position, when they do arise. My expectation that paedophile associations like NAMBLA - North American Man Boy Love Association - would be taking the same position. My expectation is that these problems have formed part of the relationships of most paedophiles in prison. But, whilst I keep this matter in mind, my basic position is that, as far as the boys are concerned, the real problem is not the paeds but the system. The system is one thing, but its hired guns are the psychs and the media. Do hired guns merely do a job, or is their heart really in it? I believe that, with the psychs and the media, the answer is yes. So, my inquiry focuses on what sort of people make up the psychs and the media, and the influences, which make them what they are.

I describe the generation I belong to as the war generation. My formative years were spent during the 2nd World War. The model for the organization of society was the army; and we boys were trained and educated for armed service. In general, the ethos was authoritarian and hierarchical, and discipline and obedience were the prime qualities called for from us. This was also the ethos of the nineteen-fifties, with the added factor that the drive was to "get back to normal" after the war. Psychs, and nearly everybody else, used this word "normal" an awful lot; and the highest praise that anybody could receive was that he is "normal". Marriage and the incidentals thereof were hugely popular; and, as the decade wore on, homosexuality became more and more targeted. By today's standards, there were an astounding number of people incarcerated in mental hospitals. In Sydney, Callan Park alone had well over two thousand patients; and, in New South Wales., there was a huge system made up of places like it. Society demanded conformity; and the people in these places were those who could not, or would not, conform, including, I suspect, homosexuals. But, as with the present morals campaign, there was a cover-up, and the usual diagnosis was "schizophrenia". The diagnosis was sufficiently vague and high-sounding as not to be easily criticized; and psychiatrists were held in such a high esteem as to be above criticism anyway. Although I can remark that, during the following decade, all of this came under heavy attack from such practitioners as Dr. H D Lang.

The 1960s bring us to the generation born after 1945, the so-called baby-boomers; and its revolt gave us the "permissive society". If the carrying out of one's duties and obligations according to one place in the hierarchy was what the war society was about, then self was what the permissive society was about. The focus of the movement was the anti-Vietnam War marches. Not to give instant obedience to the draft would have been unthinkable ten years earlier. 1969 was the year of the Stonewall Riot, and the gay movement was officially born. Before that, the gay scene had roughly the same status as the paed scene has today - very much underground, and very much reviled. I was gay then, and I am a paed now; I am still reviled. So, what's new?

But, the permissive society contained within it the seeds of its destruction. Drugs and crime degraded it. Marijuana, from the beginning, had been an integral part of the scene. But, as the law was tightened by the system; and the system hated the permissive society and all its ways, and all it stood for, so crime took over in its main centers like San Francisco, and the permissive bit died. Also, there was great admiration for Indian and Buddhist religion; and, with this ascetic infusion was born, in the seventies, the alternative society.

The permissive society was about the middle-class, and what we saw was a middle-class revolt against the system. The thing about the middle-class is that, whilst it is not in itself apart of the system, it is beholden to it, and has to dance to its tune. The permissives were dropouts. But, being a dropout is not a long-term thing to be. I was a dropout, and ran away to sea. But, even I eventually had to drop back in and get my degree. The alternative lifestyle was something, which could be approved of by the system; but, at the same time, still preserve the appearance of rebellion. Puffing it bluntly, it was a con job; but, as long as the young people were devoting their energies to saving the whales, they were not a threat. During the seventies, there were crazes for fruit juices and jogging, and sex seems to have very definitely got the thumbs-down. The thing to do was to torment the body, and not to give it pleasure. The basic ethic was salvation through good works - i.e. the ticket to heaven is a quantum of pain - and this was very much in tune with the ethic of the system. I should mention that the ethic of Buddhism is salvation through good works. The alternative life-stylers were very much into Buddhism and into meditation. Basically, they wanted peace and to be left alone. They were not allowed to smoke tobacco, but marijuana smoking was almost compulsory. The system looked the other way. The thing was to kill lust and what better way to kill lust than to smoke a joint!

The reaction to America's McCarthy era and the Vietnam War resulted in the popularity of Marxism. The educated middle-classes took to Marxism in a big way, and their darling became the Soviet Union - much greased, I suspect, with Russian gold. The enemy was the United States. There were many pro-nuclear marches, but these were really anti-America marches. Because until Chemobyle rudely woke the world in 1986, it was believed that the Soviet Union was antinuclear. The thing about the much admired Soviet Union was that it was a dictatorship, and that deep-down, these lefties did not mind in the least to being put in the position of being told what to think and what to do. Underneath, they wanted to be innocent children, and no doubt protected as such.

This is precisely the attitude the system wants in its agents and hired guns. The emergent psychologists and media journalists would be ideologically committed to doing and thinking what they are told; and their asceticism made them willing tools of a system which was launching an attack against paedophilia. It became required of these people that they be politically correct; and political correctness comes directly from the old Soviet Union. Marxists are told to put self aside and to devote their lives to the common good. Marxists are told that competition is bad and cooperation is good. They are taught that all status differences between persons should be eliminated, and that we are all equal. The symbol of this thinking is the ubiquitous blue jeans. During the seventies, the trendy middle-classes possessed no other wardrobe than two pairs of blue jeans, one dirty and worn for ordinary wear, and one clean and mended for formal occasions. Psychologists, journalists, lawyers, doctors; they all wore blue jeans when in contact with their clients and patients. University lecturers wore them. Blue jeans were originally working class garb and the obvious inference is that the middle-class was disguising itself as working class. "I'm on your side". The middle class was on the side of the system all right, blue jeans or no blue jeans. I suspect the system was a bit worried that the Soviet Union would end up winning the Cold War, and it wanted to be on the right side when the time came.

The Gay and Lesbian Rights Lobby is very much a blue jeans outfit. You can - for a fee - be a member of the lobby, and all members are absolutely equal. But a closed cell governs it, and the only function of the members is to execute the policies handed down by the cell. On the paedophilia issue, the cell is very much one with the system, and I suspect the Lobby is really a client of the system. It has a number of psychologists and social workers in it; who are all squeaky clean politically correct. It is the correct thing to hate paedophiles, and they hate them. Up to the mid-seventies, psychologists were dead against homosexuality; and, in spite of homosexuality being removed from the official list of psychiatric illnesses in 1973, 1 suspect they still are; in spite of a large number of them being, themselves, gay. They made an implicit deal with the gay movement in 1984 that they would support decriminalization, but only on the condition that the children would be protected - protected from what? That was their position then, and it is still their position. The Gay and Lesbian Rights Lobby officially supports the reduction of the male-to-male age of consent to 16, but only on the anti-discrimination ground. I suspect it would not oppose a raising of the age-of-consent of female-to-female sex on the same grounds. The Royal Commission did recommend a reduction of the age-of-consent of male-to-male contacts to 16, with the defense of mistake of consent being admissible if the boy is above 14. It seems likely that this recommendation will not take effect; especially in view of lack of support by the official gay community. Thus will the one positive recommendation of the Royal Commission prove to be a nullity. I, personally, don't believe the reduction to 16 etc. really gets to the heart of the problem, and would favor the scrapping of an age-of-consent altogether, in favor of a simple law of rape. If the person was raped, no matter what his age, then the act should be unlawful; and not otherwise. If the accused has been proved to commit rape, he should go to gaol. I approve of this. But the rape has to be real. I do not approve of deemed rape just because the partner has not reached a certain age.

Finally, I should point out that preferential paedophiles are rational people, and with the law and the enforcement procedures the way they are, most would decide the price is not worth the pleasure, and they will desist. But, their lives have been ruined. The Report does, at one point, mention concern at what might be the marital and emotional reactions of those who have been deterred by punishment. I know what mine are. I hate. I hate. I hate. I hate those who have ruined my life.

But I am feeling violent, and violence is the target of the psychs; and, according to them, sex is violence. I do not think sex is violence. Even when rape is concerned - and these psychs seem to think that the paradigm, sexual act is rape - I believe that, whilst the sexual situation triggers the violence, it is not, itself, violent. It is the same situation as when the Rev Fred hears mention of the word "homosexuality", he gets violent, but homosexuality is not violence; it is just that, in his case, it triggers violence. I would suggest that, when a rapist becomes violent towards his victim, it is the victim's helplessness, which is the real trigger. Basically, sex is about trust, and the rapist may have learnt to associate trust with helplessness.. I suggest that those psychs, who think rape is the sexual paradigm could, themselves be needing counseling. I will be dealing with this matter in a later chapter.

But, to these psychs, violence has an ideological significance. It is about power, and power, or at least patriarchal power, is bad. These psychs would be claiming that all power is patriarchal. Marxism is, itself, about power, and feminism is about power. An ideology is an idea system, which is used in the service of the attainment of power. All ideologies must be regarded as self-serving and suspect. Ideologists do not hold truth or logic in high regard. The end is everything. The means are nothing.

Power is about control through prohibitions and sanctions. There are two purposes of power one rational and one irrational. The rational one is to be able to enjoy the good things of life, to the exclusion of the powerless. The system is a network, which has a stranglehold on the highest paid and most pleasant positions in our society. The other purpose is to enjoy the pleasure given by inflicting pain upon others. Morality is about pain; and those in power inflict pain upon themselves through the adoption of a puritanical lifestyle devoted to duty. Power is about being able to inflict pain upon others; and, if the system is willing to do its duty, it, at least, is well paid for doing it. People, not in the system, have also got to do their duty, but they are not well paid for it; so they have to be forced to it by fear of punishment or, by social conditioning, by virtue of which they naturally obey their betters. Between the masses and system, is the middle-class, of which I have been writing. The middle-class is made up of person who, whilst they themselves are not members of the system, are dependent upon it. They are well paid and have pleasant positions; but, only if they toe the line. The relevant persons, as mentioned previously, include the psychs and media journalists. When one is writing of rationales, it is difficult to make a final pronouncement about who is kidding whom. The system is about power, first, middle and last; but does it really have any ideological or religious positions of its own? Or does it merely adopt those positions, which carry the most clout with, and menu most to its agent, the middle-class? And what is currently in vogue with the middle-class is called political correctness. The middle-class is subject to social conditioning by the system - that superior to us conditions us in our thinking and actions. But to what extent is it really in good faith about its affirmation of belief. Is the content of the middle-class's belief system tailored so as to most easily and efficiently socially condition the masses? Control of sex is the key to social control and power. Sex is about the most profound pleasure we are capable to feeling. When we allow someone else to control our sex live and limit our pleasure, we are allowing that other person to control us in the most profound possible manner. Once we accept control over our sex life, we will be allowing control over all other aspects of our lives as well. Sexuality lies at the core of our freedom and existence, and as we allow our sovereignty to pass to somebody else, so we are diminished by this transference. My study of the Wood Royal Commission has been a study of the social control of sexuality in our society, by the system, and for the system. As for myself, I will never accept that sex is bad. Rather I will always believe that sex and love are good, and absolutely good; and contrary to what I was told in Cooma by the psychs, I do not believe there is such a thing as bad love. If I did, I would have to ask him what it was; and, in accepting what he said, I would be handing over to him the control of my life. I know what it is, paedophilia. But I am not interested. Rather, do I believe that the person, who is saying sex and love are wrong, is bad. The psych was an arsehole.

What I have just written about he psychs goes also for journalists. But, with the added factor that newspapers have to be filled, and sold. Filling up the vacant news columns on slack news days, especially Mondays, must be a problem. People love reading about sex. Yet the paper's owners, always members of the system, insist that sex should not be proselytized. Tabloids can have their page three girls in swimsuits. But, this is harmless stuff, and well past its use-by-date. Sex can be written about as long as it is bad mouthed; and what better than long stories about evil men chasing innocent, helpless little boys! The Wood Royal Commission into the Police Service must have been a godsend to the media; and once its paedophile segment got under way, it must have seemed to the media like its Christmases had all come at once.

Information is power, and if you have the means of getting your message out to the general public, you have power. Because the system controls the great newspaper dailies and the commercial TV stations, it has got great power. Preventing others from getting their message out is also power. No commercial publisher will be touching this Review, so I will have to be publishing it myself; which makes its certain it will have only a small circulation. It will not be reviewed in the great dailies, nor will it be mentioned by anybody with a public voice. Generally only members of the system and its agents have a public voice. We do not burn books in Australia, but only because we have better ways of making sure that undesirable works are unread.

The great problem I tried to deal with in Chapter one of this Review is where the Wood Royal Commission - Paedophile Segment is coming from. We are dealing with absolute morality; all is black and white, and right and wrong. The law is right absolutely. James Wood's attitude seems to be that all law is made in heaven, and must be obeyed absolutely, and cannot be questioned. Because it is the law of the land, it has to be by persons within its jurisdiction. But, this is not to say it, cannot be questioned. The great Gandhi broke the imperial law, which, then, was the law of India. He went to prison, which was the price for his standing up for what he thought was right. He probably didn't object to going to prison. He was a lawyer and knew the score. I don't object to having been put in prison. But, at the same time I don't consider that what I did was wrong in the moral sense. Like Gandhi, I believe that what I did was morally right. What I am saying is that the law is about the command of the sovereign, and not about morality; and that the sovereign can be morally wrong, as he was in Nazi Germany.

I do not want any of my readers to be doubt about where I am coming from. I have already left no doubt about where my personal interest lies. I am a paedophile. But, I also have a strong, fully worked out theoretical position. My theory has two parts.

The first part is my basic theory of mind, and the second part is my sexual preference theory. The theory of mind is also my theory of good and evil; so, it is also a theory of morality. I would also refer the reader to my book, An Essay on Mind, Morals, and the Paedophile Scare. Specifically, the sexual preference theory is an answer to all other theories of the nature of homosexuality and paedophilia.

My theory of mind and morals is an ontological theory that is it is a theory of being. What are we? I start its exposition by beginning at the beginning and ending at the end; as my legal readers will recall a judge advised counsel to do when that learned gentleman began his address saying, "I really don't know how to start".

My start is the Big Bang, which astronomers are now agreed, is the start of the universe. These same astronomers are now wasting much ink in arguing about what came before the Big Bang. I suggest this is not a sensible question, because the beginning is the absolute beginning, which includes time. I suggest that it be treated as a fortuitous event that has no cause (which is the meaning of "fortuitous"). But, logic demands that events must be caused? Yes, but only deductive logic. In the case of situations governed by inductive logic, the causes are absent or insufficient. I suggest that we describe the situation before the beginning of time as "all equals nothing"; that is, a situation which is unlimited and non- existential. I suggest the situation be described as unlimited, utterly random soup of positive and negative radicals. The fortuitous event is one positive radical and one negative radical coming together and annihilating in the equation + plus- = 0. Now, keep in mind that my beginning situation is quite senseless, and that the first sensible proposition is the equation. To be able to speak of something as being sensible, it has to be limited; that is to say, for something to be, there must also be something which is not. The first event created limits, because it created zero. There is now a definite quantity of positive and negative radicals; and it is subject to scientific investigation because it can be measured.

But, the price of beginning existence is the destruction of perfection. Perfection is described by "all equals nothing". I suggest that, besides the creation of limits and existence, the first event has created the force - or need - to return to perfection. I describe this need as mind. Did the first event create mind, or mind create the first event? It doesn't matter. Immediately after the first event, we have a situation of a single element of rationality in a limited soup of chaos. One way we can put it, is that the first event created a single element of logic - the zero - in a sea of irrationality. Whereby, a process was started, which will end by all positive radicals and all negative radicals having married in annihilation events so that nothing is left, and the situation of perfect logic whereby all equals nothing is established, or reestablished.

The essence of mind is the striving to perfection. It can be considered as perfection, with the existential mind being an incomplete mind. Mind is the cause of all existential events; with the existential, incomplete, mind seeking to complete itself, and achieve perfection. The first event was fortuitous. The final event will be absolutely caused. It follows that the measure of the success probability of the early events being successful is a measure of how far away in time they are from the beginning. The early events have a low probability of success, and with the events near the end having a high probability of success. With the final event being absolutely certain to succeed. I suggest that this probability is the measure of the resistance which existence is putting in the path of mind to its achieving its objective.

We experience this resistance, in its physical manifestation, as inertia. Gravity is a form of this inertia. When a moving body comes close to another body, it slows, and, and falls into that body. Gravity/inertia is a function of mass; and mass is what there was in the beginning, and will not be at the end. For, the universe is being burnt up. When a positive radical and a negative radical are and annihilated, they are burnt up and converted into energy. An annihilation event reduces mass/inertia, and everything goes faster. This added motion, or propensity to move, is the energy, which is in the place of the prior mass. At the end, the final bit of mass will become energy, and all will equal nothing. The process is taking place in our sun, and all of the stars; where one element is burnt, and becomes another higher in the periodic table. A recent discovery of astronomy has been "black-holes", at the center of which is the state - I suspect - of all equals nothing, which is called a singularity. A singularity is a "place" where existence does not exist - an unlimited state.

It is due to inertia that we have time. Inertia places a drag on energy. Energy is the generation of nothing, but a limited nothing, and the limit is provided by gravity/inertia. Limited nothing is manifested to us in light, or electromagnetic radiation. As is well known, the velocity of light is inversely proportional to the strength of the gravitational field through which it is passing. In the absence of such a field, its velocity would be infinite; and, since time is a function of the velocity of light, in its absence, there would be no time, and events would happen simultaneously; a nonsensical statement, but it is making a point.

It follows that, as the universe burns up, and loses total mass, time speeds up. So, as we look back, time is seen to go ever more slowly. Which means that we will never be able to see the starting point. So, the big bang is a theoretical construct which can never be known to the senses; having occurred infinitely long ago. This is another instance of our being trapped within the limits of time, and we can never go beyond. Limited energy is, like all is nothing, a contradiction; in this case, limited big as against limited small. Everything in the universe is either spinning around a center or a part of system spinning around its center. Atoms spin. The earth spins. The solar system is spinning. Our galaxy is spinning.

Presumably, the universe is spinning. Which means that there is a universal system of space-time coordinates upon which inertial navigation systems depend. Electromagnetic radiation has polarity, as everybody, who has ever erected a TV antenna, knows.

We can look upon the prior state as a state of perfection, in which a mistake has occurred, destroying the perfection. Existence can be viewed as the process through which this error is being resolved. Rather like the office staying back in order to chase and destroy an accounting error. We have seen how attempts to resolve the error in the universe's early history mostly led to further error. And each fresh error leads to another existence, dependent upon, but at the same time, independent of the first. Rather like the mad TV mechanic putting faults into the set, in the process of chasing what was originally wrong with it; with each new fault requiring an independent search. So, the universe, whilst being originally created, is being created all the time, with the black holes being a record of errors being finally solved and eliminated. So, there will be billions of black holes before the final big black hole.

We are the result of such an error, with our final resolution occurring with our deaths. Well, perhaps not the final resolution. We may go through many stages as our sun is going through. We are like flames, which gradually die down, like candlelight. So much for the dream of living forever. Sex is an annihilation event, with the resolution energy manifesting itself as an orgasm. Since life is about resolution; Freud was right, literally right, when he described life as being about sex. But, of course, only a part, a small part, of this sexuality is about genitals. Love is what resolution is about, so sex is about love. We have free wills. Remember I described the primary mind as free will, because it has no cause,. and is not determined. At least, it wasn't originally. But, as history accumulates, it becomes more and more determined by that history. As our experience accumulates, we become more and more determined by that experience. Morality is about our objectives being in harmony with those of the primary mind. But the requirement is simple, it is about love/resolution - and not about obeying rules for the sake of obeying them.

But, as with the rest of the physical world, with the rest of existence, we are subject to resistance. Resolution is what our consciousness is about. Resistance is what our unconscious is about. Consciousness is positive, creative, and about sex and love. The unconscious is negative, destructive, and anti-sex. In a word, the unconscious is about violence as its object. Freud went on about sexuality being repressed. But, he was wrong when he blamed the conscious mind. The culprit is the unconscious. We experience the unconscious as coming from outside. We experience impulses which demand satisfaction, and which we normally resist as being evil. But the unconscious is cunning, and is always searching for an open door. We will use any excuse for expressing the evil impulses; because they are so insistent that they be satisfied. As social beings, we normally are under some instinctive pressure to be obedient and do what is required by society. The Royal Commission has given the green light to poofter bash, and hate paedophiles; and my Ginger Meggs gang is taking full advantage of the permission. My inquiry has been to discover where the psychs are coming from. Whatever the source, they are using every ideological twist and trick of the trade to attack sexuality. It isn't the paeds who were the tools of Satan, it was the Royal Commission. But, in attacking sexuality, these people are attacking themselves. Happiness is not the emotion the Ginger Meggs gang will be feeling after spitting abuse at me. Joy is not the emotion James Wood would have felt after writing his Report. Both the gang and Wood would have felt a sense of power. Power is the weapon of the unconscious. But, at the same time, they would have felt a sense of intense powerlessness. Both would have welcomed defeat, because defeat would have meant their being released from their bondage. Both have rational reasons for hating the paeds, because their defeat confirms the bondage. I mean, putting it another way; if you succeed in attacking sex when you are twelve, you are in for a long, bleak life. Sure, the gang will say it is heterosexual. So, eventually, it will get girls. It will be sex with a major component of obedience to the rules in it; which will weigh the joy and spontaneity component right down to the bottom of the harbor. They will probably have difficulty in performing. But there might be something else, and very nasty.

Once the sexual urge becomes associated with pain and punishment, it will function as a trigger to open the door to the unconscious. And, once sensitization has occurred, even the mere mention of the word "sex" will act as the trigger. Mutual participation in the sexual act requires a great deal of trust; for, in the act of love, we are almost completely defenseless; and particularly so if one of the partners is in a position of power over the other. In regard to any member of the Ginger Meggs gang I am completely powerless; because, just one word from him could destroy me. But, of course, although the community puts such a temptation in their way to take advantage of trust, they would suffer the same penalty as Judas did after his betrayal of Christ. He, to, had the permission of the community, indeed he was heavily bribed by it, to do what he did. I would think that anybody who betrays the trust of love, will suffer from a greatly reduced strength of consciousness, and so become prey to material forcing itself into consciousness; and so become obsessional, neurotic, or even psychotic, and perhaps suicidal. Dreams are the mental mechanism by which we protect ourselves from the unconscious during sleep, when consciousness is at its weakness - it never wholly dies even in the deepest sleep. Dreams are, in effect, miniature battles, where the invading unconscious is normally turned back. When the mechanism fails, and the unconscious material threatens to break through, we wake up in the terror of a nightmare. Breaking the bust of love would so weaken the moral system that the culprit could expect to suffer from constant nightmares. Morality is the source of the strength and quality of consciousness, because morality is the essence of consciousness. Morality is character. Morality is about the exercise of will in a condition of freedom. If we cannot choose, we cannot be good. Without choice, we can do nothing but be our unconscious, and be evil. When the system denies freedom to the masses, it destroys their moral potential. To be good, we must be free. If we are not free, that this no excuse, because we can still choose to fight. My fight is this Review. Not to fight is to display moral weakness. But the greatest sin of all is to betray one's lover.

What happens in sadism is that the weakness and vulnerability of the sexual partner triggers a desire to inflict humiliation and pain on the part of the stronger partner. Sadism is a contagion of the sexual act by the unconscious; and it is again an instance of power being the trapdoor through which destructive impulses clamber from the unconscious into consciousness. If the partner does not invite this attention, it is rape. But, the partner may masochistic and invite the sadistic attentions because he believes humiliation and pain are truly a part of what sex is about. He has been taught that sex is bad and nasty; and the sadistic attentions of his partner also trigger his unconscious. If the treatments of sex offenders are successful, sadists and masochists will be the result. I suspect that the psychs who conduct these programs, are, themselves, sadists; who purposely seek these positions, of power, in order to inflict humiliation and pain upon the offenders within their power. The aim of these programs is to destroy the inmate's sexuality and ability to relate to other people. Niche jobs for sadists: I suspect that both of my "victims" were the sadistic products of a fundamentalist sex education, and that my punishment was their ultimate satisfaction. This is a point to watch with the Ginger Meggs Gang.

Psychotherapy, in my opinion is always bad if it is directed towards behavioral change and control; and it is likely to be ineffectual, because the real client is a third party in the person of the "community" - the system in other words. If it is being used as an instrument of victim revenge and to create fear of sex and human relationships, and effectively to increase the power and influence of the client's unconscious, it will create monsters (this has been. mentioned before). Cognitive therapy is mind control, and, as a threat to liberty, is evil. Psychotherapy is inappropriate for the preferential paedophile, but I am not saying that all kinds of psychotherapy are inappropriate in all cases. Habitual rapists - real, not deemed - are appropriate cases for a therapy which is directed towards, first self-esteem, and then substantially, the self-concept. The aim of the therapy should be to correct the negative attitudes to sex that will be found in all these cases, and generally to recognize and strengthen the client's self-concept, which may indeed be that of a preferential homosexual paedophile. This would be an impossibility in a prison setting because the real client must always be the prison system itself, and the requirements of the parole board, etc. Outside, the community does not go away. This because professional therapists have a legal reporting duty, and are effectively agents of the police. So, therapists cannot be professionals, and must receive their payment as donations.

Basically, my new psychotherapy would be founded on my new typography. Whereas, with Freud, the unconscious contained the instincts and drives, with mine, these find a place in the conscious mind, leaving the unconscious to pure destruction and negativity. Freud saw repression as being a function of the conscious. I see it as being a function of the unconscious. At the core of consciousness is the self-concept - more or less the "existence" of the existentialists. The enemy of the conscious and the self-concept is the unconscious, and this would be the enemy of my therapy. A weak self-concept means low self-esteem. Self-esteem is about how good we feel about ourselves, and upon which depend such qualities as self-confidence. And a strong unconscious will mean low self-esteem. No therapist can have influence over such basic personal qualities as "character", which depend on basic personal morality - which is about our love of freedom. As far as psychs are concerned, moral strength is the bottom line.

I will finish this section with a return to the basic theory to cover a point which I neglected before This is that asymmetry is foundational to existence. Without asymmetry, all would equal nothing, and there could be no directions in time and space. There would be no time, and space. I suggest that, with the first annihilation event - which involves two radicals, and two denotes symmetry, there is created simultaneously a third element, will, or mind. A three-element situation is fundamentally asymmetrical. The will is that the annihilations shall continue, until existence is entirely consumed. So, we now have a direction in space - the explosion of space - and the direction in time and the hands of a clock. We do not have perfect circles in existence; we have ellipses. We think of time and space as being dimensions at right angles to one another. But, we know this is not right because both time and space are subject to distortion by gravity.

My universe is not at all a rational universe, which is seen as a kind of clock created and wound up by God. In such a conception, God plays no further part, and we all go along in our predestined courses. The search for a unified field theory, as the final keystone in a perfect system, which will enable us to know everything, is based on, this kind of conception. According to this view, it is only our lack of knowledge, which are preventing us from seeing that we live in a perfect world, where everything is knowable, and everything predictable.

My view is very different. I see rationality as being a pimple floating upon an enormous substratum of irrationality; and that knowledge will never be deductive, only inductive. Which means that we will never be able to move far from empirical fact. And empirical facts just have to be discovered by hard work. I have devised a kind of unified field theory, the only kind that can possibly be devised. But, one very different from the one that Einstein was searching for; and I suspect Stephen Hawkins is searching for. My conception of the human mind is likewise the rational pimple of consciousness floating on the irrational substratum of the unconscious.

A dinner conversation has warned me that I need to clarify my position on the morality of power. The psychs' position is that power is intrinsically bad; and is something peculiar to adult males. The true position is that it is the abuse of power, which is wrong, and abuse of power is not confined to adult males. We need to have power in order to be able to do anything. Being powerless invites victimization.

The conversation was about the position of a teacher in the classroom. The psychs believe that no adults - and especially no male adults - should be in a position of power over children. A teacher should not be in a position of power. Rather, he should see himself as a servant of his students, with his role being to respond to their needs. This is called child- centered teaching. It is the children who should be in charge of the classroom, not the teacher. This is giving the power to the child, but power in the hands of children is not bad, as it is in the hands of adults. In reply to any query on this point, the psychs would reply that children are innocent beings; thereby invoking their cherished belief in the innocent of children. Innocent children are not sexual. This is what their innocence is about. Psychs do not like sex. In their view, adult power is bad because adults are sexual; and their power is bad because it is about sex. Power in the hands of children is good, because it is innocent of sex.

The thought occurs to me that these psychs generally love children but hate their fellow adults; to whom they are as poisonous as an Australian black snake. I find it hard to avoid the observation that these people are behaving like repressed paedophiles. No wonder they hate unrepressed paeds, and are trying so strenuously to "protect" the children from them. But, I would think that a lot of psychs are merely bitter and twisted people - especially women - whom life has passed by. Whatever may be the truth of these observations, life in a contemporary state school classroom must be hell. Power in the hands of teachers is subject to the checks of their responsibilities and obligations. Power in the hands of children is subject to no checks at all. There are their long-term interests, but kids do not think in terms of the long term. Power in the hands of the kids is unlimited; and being unlimited, it is very, very liable to be abused. There is an intrinsic irrationality about anything unlimited, which suggests evil; and we are not far from a situation where power in the hands of kids has to be evil. The enormous power that the paedophile witch-hunt has put in the hands of the kids is evil. The power that has been given to them is negative and destructive. The power they have been given is the power to say no. They have been given no power to say yes. So, it is power without freedom. So, also, on this ground, it is intrinsically bad. Kids are being empowered to hurt, but not to love. On the personal front, the Ginger Meggs Gang can be as nasty to me as it likes. Because, on the one hand, it feels under no obligation to obey the second great commandment, "You should love thy neighbor as yourself" - because I am not its neighbor, because I am a paedophile. And, on the other hand, it has nothing to fear from me in the way of reprisals; because I have no power over it whatsoever.

I constructed my sexual preference theory as long ago as the late sixties, whilst I was at sea; and I constructed it as the result of the observations I made as a member of the small and closed gay community in which I found myself.

That is thirty years ago. So, why is it still largely unknown? The big reason is that it did not address the basic issue, age. Sure, I had a satisfactory theory of gender preference. But, it is only about incomplete a month back that I have been able to construct a satisfactory theory of age preference; and it is the age preference issue which is the current issue, and which I believe has always been the real issue.

Up to now, the battle for sexual freedom has been fought on ideological grounds. To the Marxists who controlled gay politics, and still control it, my theorizing is simply "irrelevant". The Marxist position to gender is simple. Gender differences do not exist. Differences, especially gender differences, imply status and power difference; which is capitalist. These Marxists support homosexuality; because heterosexuality implies capitalistic gender difference. The Marxist approach is called queer theory.

Even Marxists cannot deny that we differ in age, and their position appears to be that the older we get, the more powerful, evil, and capitalistic we get, and the true role of decent people is to protect the pure, innocent, weak, and Marxist young from the lusts of the evil, contaminated, powerful and capitalistic old. Basically then, the Marxist controlled gay and lesbian leadership supports the rigorous enforcement of the age-of-consent law, even though it is giving lip service (on ideological grounds) for equal age-of-consent.

Every dog has its day, and with Marxism joining the lost causes list, I suggest that the day for my sexual preference theory - which recognizes, and is about gender difference - to play a role has arrived. There is another point that powerful support for the theory has arrived during the last couple of years in the discovery of a gay gene. The status of the discovery has been disputed. But, apart from the technicalities of the genetics, I believe collateral evidence for its existence is overwhelming. My theory assumes a genetic origin for sexual preference; but, up to the recent past, there has been no direct supporting evidence.

Everybody (except Marxists) knows that there are two genders, male and female; but I suggest there are, in fact, four genders. These are super-male, male, female, and super-female. The gay genes are the super-male and super-female. Thus, I predict that there will be found two gay genes and not just one; being a gay gene and a lesbian gene.

The genders relate sexually to their neighbors. Thus, the super-male relates to the male. The male relates to the female. And the female relates to the super-female. Super-males and super-females are thus homosexual, whilst males and females are bisexual. And, now comes the age bit. Towards the end of their adolescence, males and females are more orientated towards super-males and super-females than to females and males. But, as they emerge into adulthood, they become more orientated towards heterosexuality. In summary, in their immaturity, males and females are more homosexual than heterosexual. But, as they mature, they become heterosexual, but never completely so - at least at the genetic level of determination. Up to now, argument has been centered at the social level of influence and determination; with just an occasional reference to what lies underneath. This theory is about what lies underneath.

Thus, we can now understand where paedophiles are coming from. Boys, up the age of eighteen - male boys that is - find strong sexual attraction to gay males, that is super-males. Paedophiles are those gays who accept their orientation; and all gays would be finding these young boys attractive, but not all gays will admit the truth. Just as not all gays will even admit they are gay, and there are those gays who will obey the law whatever what. They are the gays, who, before decriminalization, were either celibate, or "straight". The official gay community takes the position of those gays who will not admit to the truth. Thus, its position is identical to the official psychological community, which considered, up to the late seventies, that homosexuality is an illness. This is why the official gay community has opted out of the present battle; and why it is our enemy, just as much as James Wood is. The official view is that gays and paedophiles are categorically different animals. The official gay community, in taking an unsustainable position, has spelt its own doom.

The age theory is nothing new. Sigmund Freud recognized that boys went through a homosexual phase. This is why he considered homosexuality in adult males to be a symptom of arrested psychosexual development; and is a marvelous example of the errors one can fall into from generalizing from part truths, or from only knowing some of the facts. It was an important error, because it determined psychoanalysis's hostile attitude to homosexuality right up to the recent past.

These things are well known to paeds. We find young boys attractive, and the young boys find us attractive - whatever our age. But, sooner or later, as the boys mature, they turn to the girls, and we experience a mutual loss of interest. The Royal Commission noted, as part of the evils of paedophilia, that paeds normally abandoned their boys when they grew too old. It didn't note that this loss of interest is normally mutual. But none of this really makes sense without a theoretical framework. And, this is what we now have.

Once the total picture is known, it can be seen to be very convenient. Adult bisexuals are strongly orientated towards females, and normally marry. Super-males take care of the boys before they are ready to marry. The task of the paeds is to take care of the boys' sexual and emotional development; so that, by the time they are ready to marry, they have been able to put all this behind them. Basic personal development can be an expensive business after marriage - although profitable for lawyers. We have been described as inadequate because we select immature boys rather than adults to be our lovers. Inadequate! We have the boys at their most difficult time. Anybody who thinks that relating to an adolescent is a snip should be keeping on with his day job. And then we have to handle a constant turnover. We can never say that our relationships are for life.

Note, that although we speak of bisexuality, our basic theory told us that nature abhors symmetry, so that boys liking paeds, and changing over to girls as they grow older is the kind of thing our fundamental theory should have led us to expect. I had been misled by seeing the changeover as being socially determined, rather than genetically determined.

Ideologically correct "queer" theory tells us that sexual preference is entirely a matter for the will. I prefer another male today. But, tomorrow, I might wake up and prefer a female. This is, in effect, a denial of our whole history. And I don't personally know any gay who believes it. It is much more likely that gays, that is true gays - super-males - who have married, have done so in conformity to social and religious pressure. If you truly believe homosexuality is a sin, I suppose you marry. Sexual preference is not absolute. Rather, it is a bit like our preference for either using our right or left hand. I am naturally right-handed; but this is not to say that I am unable to use my left hand. It is just that I use it relatively ineffectively. We have already noted that, if we come from a stratum of society where duty is paramount, preferences has only a minor role in our personal relationships anyway. We don't marry a woman because we love her, we marry her in order to fulfill a social duty and to have children. I suspect that James Wood comes into this category, and would consider romantic love to be positively indecent.

A few points: I do not believe that transsexuality should be encouraged. I believe it to be merely a survivor from pre-liberation. I think it will be found that virtually all transsexuals have had a strict religious education mainly Roman Catholic. They have been brought up in households where male and female sexual identities are alone allowed, and where homosexuality is a mortal sin. They have found males attractive, and have been f****d. So, since they don't feel they have sinned, they must be really female - women enclosed by some terrible mistake, in men's bodies. They have to be counseled and referred by two doctors, before they have the operation. But I suspect it is usually the case of the blind leading the blind. I suspect that transsexuals are normally super-males - in the same category as myself. In fact, transsexuals usually accept me as one of themselves; and they do this by instinct. I am one of them. So, I know what being a transsexual is about.

Ageism is a real and traditional problem in the gay community. It need not be. When somebody tells me, "You're too old Geoffrey", I know I have made some terrible mistake, and am trying to get off with another queen. The boys I am sexually compatible with don't notice my age. In fact, I suspect they positively welcome it, and that it is a part of my attractiveness. The trouble is that the gay community is mostly birds of a feather. It cannot be an island unto itself. In practice, it isn't. This is why the beats and rent boys flourish, just as they did before decriminalization.

And now the big question: are gays paedophiles, as was charged by Franca Arena. The answer is clear. Yes, true gays, that is super-males, have a strong natural tendency towards paedophilia. This is not to say that all gays are breakers of the law. But what it does mean that we like to go as young as our nerve and opportunity allow. We do not like to go with people older than ourselves, no matter how young we are. Bisexual members of the gay community - a tiny minority in the gay community, but in the majority outside - do not like sexual partners of the same sex younger than themselves. The bisexuals go for older gays. So, stuff that up your whatever Franca. The official line of the Gay- and Lesbian Rights Lobby that homosexuality and paedophilia are categorically different is pure semantics and ideology. If he is over 18, you are a homosexual. If he is under 18, you're a paedophile. What if you think he is over 18, and he isn't? What if you think he is under 18, and he is over that age? The Lobby will cite Justice Wood's agreement about the distinction; but there would not be a person on this earth, or even in this existence, who knows less about homosexuality than that gentleman. The stance of the Lobby has eroded its credibility, and has seriously effected its ability to pursue positive policies in this area. Its object has been to distance itself. In this it has succeeded, and succeeded in making itself irrelevant.

What does the theory tell us about straights? This is a category I have missed. I missed it because it is a matter of mind and intent, rather than the natural predisposition, which has been the subject of my inquiry. Mostly, straights are bisexuals who have rejected the homosexual side of their natures. But, there would be a significant number of super-males who are straight. This is a more serious matter, because it involves a complete rejection of their natural sexuality. I suspect that these are the people who are the dedicated oppressors. St. Paul is suspected. When I come into contact with someone who is all the time going on about "poofs", I wonder. These are also the people who the most active in the oppression of paedophiles. "Straightness" is a synonym for being conservative, conformist, and generally signifies a boring person. The forgoing makes it obvious that we are dealing with poverty stricken personalities. It used to be the Lobby's line that straights were on the same level as gays. Bullshit! The trouble about the Lobby that it has been seduced by the system, through the system's recognition of it. It consequently feels under an obligation to pursue "acceptable" policies. You can choose to be straight but you cannot choose to be gay. I can ask a person why he is straight. I cannot ask a gay why he is gay.

My basic and principal recommendation is that the age-of-consent be abolished. I am writing of the male-to-male age-of-consent, because it is male-to-male sexual relationships, which are the subject of this Review. But, my remarks would apply in all contexts.

Whatever age is made the legal age-of-consent it is arbitrary. I accept there should be a legal age for marriage, and don't argue with the figure of 18. But, we are not talking about marriage; which is, in intention at any rate, a relationship for life. The ability to involve us in adult psychosexual relationships should be the culmination of a training and development, which has taken place throughout the course of our immature years. Marriage bells should be regarded like a degree in law, which is the culmination of all of our education; kindergarten, primary school, high school, and university. And the degree just brings us to the starting gate. I suggested in the last chapter that the function of paedophiles is to be an essential part of this developmental process, in situations where mistakes do not have the disastrous consequences that they can have in marriage. Because the age-of-consent makes sex illegal during the relevant years, no development can take place - except illegally.

I recommend that rape should be the only factor that brings sex within the ambit of the law. And I recommend that rape should have its common law meaning of an act taking place by virtue of physical force, or by threat of any kind of harm or, by deception of some kind. It is nonsense to say that boys cannot give consent to sexual activity. They certainly can vent to their feelings if they do not give consent. It might be argued that they are subject to the power of authority. Yes, they are. But sex by virtue of power of authority implies the use of some kind of threat; which is rape. A consideration would be the form of the sexual act. If it were completely passive on the part of the boy, it would be easy to conclude that there was an element of rape. But, if the boy played an active role, which involves that he had an erection, a rape would be harder to prove. If a boy can have an erection, he can have an orgasm and he is able to say yes.

I would be eliminating all legal fictions from the sexual law; and indeed, from all of the criminal law. Statutory rape is a legal fiction. Statutory rape is said to have taken place when the sole element of the crime has been that the boy has been aged less than 18. The trouble is that the law treats a "construction" as the same as a fact, and statutory rape is treated the same as real rape, and draws the same penalty. In prison, where sex offenders' remedial programs are geared to violent offenders, statutory offenders are treated as violent offenders - to the detriment of any credibility the programs might otherwise have had. The result is that offenders, who have been guilty of breaking what amounts to a mere regulation, in the same class as breaking the speed limit, get enormous sentences that put them in the same category as murderers. I remind you of the ten years that Colin Fisk got. This is injustice on a grand scale. As a general rule, gaols should be places of incarceration of last resort for repeat offenders of serious crime. And, hand on the inside thigh is not serious crime, however excited it makes Channel 7.

There can be no effective sex offenders' remedial programs in prisons under the present situation; but, assuming my reforms have been carried into effect, what then?

Punishment for sex creates violent sex offenders, because, with the association between sex and violence set up, sex is able to trigger the violence, which is sitting ready in the unconscious ready to pop out. The program should stress that the sentence is for the violence, not the sex; and should concentrate on building up positive attitudes to sex in the offender. The question of what makes up true consent should be asked. The law treats threats as negating true consent, but what about inducements? After all, "threats or inducements" negate confessions. The law does not take inducements into account, because there would be too much uncertainty as to what constitutes an inducement and how it differs from a present. The difference is easy in theory. An inducement is a form of consideration doing something, whilst a present is a gratuity. But, in practice, the distinction could be hard to establish. Is a tip in an expensive restaurant an inducement or a present? A consideration cannot be given for past services, so the tip cannot be a consideration - anyway, you get my point. But it does matter in the sexual context, and especially in the gay and paed communities, where it is commonly believed that when the rent-boys have given consent because they have demanded and received payment. I submit that sexual consent, on the confession model, has to be untainted by either threat or inducement if it is to be untainted. This is of personal importance to me; because, in the relevant crime, although I issued no threats, I did offer inducements, which may have influenced the boys' consent. But, seen from their point of view, the inducements may well have provided the excuse. "I did it because of the money" sounds better than, "I did it because I wanted to". Or at least to the ears of a policeman it would. In fact, it had been my quite conscious object to provide them with a way out from their responsibility. But hell, what is that they did that was wrong?

Of course, the best protection against boys going to the police, or responding to threats or inducements from that quarter, is a strong personal nexus. A true love relationship, in other words. I have to admit that, although I did know my boys, there was still lacking that strong personal nexus. These are the sort of things the psychs should be talking about, but aren't. Psychs should, like the law, only consider the facts. More especially, they should not fill in their knowledge of their inmate client with ideologically based assumptions. An older person is not necessarily in a position of power over a younger person. A big person is not necessarily in a position of power over a small person. Even if he is in a position of power, it is not necessarily true that that power has been abused. Because wives were, at one time, normally economically dependent on their husbands, it doesn't mean to say that their normal position was that of a prostitute with but a single client. Not only psychs, but the law also makes these assumptions. Penalties are heavier if the "perpetrator" is in a "position of authority". The psychs themselves have had a hand in making this law. So, a further recommendation of mine would be to remove these "aggravations" from the statute book. The overriding principle should be that all elements of a crime must be proved. If the person in authority has used that authority to obtain compliance with his sexual desires, it is rape, and the matter should have to be proved.

Where the law is operating in non-rape situations, it is causing enormous harm to its victims. That's right, its victim I can cite my own case as an example. Yesterday, I had my first contact with the younger boy for almost nine years. My puppy dog came near his gate, and wanted to be friendly with him. He was just getting out of his car. The "boy" swore at him, and told him to get off his property. The pup, being an animal of spirit, barked at him. I called the pup off, and called the "boy" a f***'n bastard, with feeling. Obviously, the abuse directed at the dog was really directed at me, it was just that the dog provided the, not very good, excuse.

Now, I wasn't the only paed involved with these boys. The other paed, whom I will call Peter, used regularly to sleep in this boy's bedroom, when the parents were away. It's only suspicion. When David Yeldham was observed leaving a railway toilet cubicle with another gentleman, he may have been only having a legal conference. Sex with a boy is safe unless somebody actually observes the act, or the boys are prepared to mount the witness stand. Peter is safe because his personal nexus with the boys was strong. And, he had a good cover. He is a "good Christian", and "wouldn't do things like that". But, nevertheless, the parents were a little uneasy about him, and he was eventually banned from their house. As far as I know, Peter is still on good terms with the boys. It was I who was responsible for their being dragged before the police, to reveal all their private lives to strangers. And, it was I who was responsible for their punishment of somebody for loving them. I didn't have a good cover, and my personal nexus with the boys was weak. Whilst, it is a thought that they might have felt resentment towards me for causing them to be unfaithful to Peter, it from their affair with me. And what they caused to happen to me as a result of that affair that they have derived their depression and guilt; and they hate me for it. They could, with more reason, hate the law, but the law is remote. The law can no more stop paedophilia than can bring the highest mountain in the world to Sydney; and it should cease its pointless damage. According to the United Nations, every child is entitled to a good start in life. What the law is doing is preventing the proper personal development of boys, and could conceivably be challenged under the Commonwealth's external power.

On the news tonight, I heard of the attempt to bring to an end to parole in the United States State of Georgia. This measure has also been proposed in Queensland If what is required is an effective crime preventative measure, and if this is what law enforcement is ultimately about - and not about "blood" - an effective parole system is the most effective measure possible. No parole means letting crims out of gaol with no support system and no supervision. It is a prescription, almost an imperative, for them to commit more crime. This is important when it is considered that somewhere about two-thirds of released prisoners return to gaol. It should be even more of a concern to Corrective services about what happens outside as what happens inside. I found my own parole period to be very helpful, and I had a good parole officer. But, the interest of the politicians and electorate apparently does not go beyond blood. I can assure the reader that once one perceives that one's punishment has only the purpose, and pretext, to satisfy somebody's lust to inflict pain and torture, the urge, on release, to inflict payback is overwhelming.

It can be said that the basic motive behind law enforcement is the state's desire to show whose boss. It is the boss gunman in the community, and it wants to show any would be challengers who is boss. In the past gaols have been built deliberately imposing and frightful to reinforce this message, the Bastille for example; although, today, gaols are generally built out of town, and made as discreet as possible. The present day rhetoric of politicians indicates they believe pain has a positive value, and that to deliver it to the people is to deliver positive value. Persecuting persons who do not toe the sexual line might seem to be a safe way to do this, because sex offenders are not generally criminal in character, and would be unlikely to be obsessed with payback, and playing the state at its own game. They are, in other words, generally "docile"; which causes the psychs to despise them as "inadequate".

Because politicians are primarily concerned to with the delivery of blood, they will not be even considering carrying any of my reforms into effect; not even if the Chief Justice himself did suggest them. There seems to be little hope of even the mild reform, recommended by Justice Wood, of reducing the age-of-consent to 16 and allowing the defense of mistake if the boy is, in fact, between 14 and 16, of being carried into law. I have already dealt with this subject before, when I expressed doubt about whether it came from James Wood's having any liberal spirit. There are definite enforcement advantages in having uniform age-of-consent law, especially when the Commonwealth has aspirations to extra territorial enforcement. The justice displayed enthusiasm for having the campaign against paedophilia fought nationally, and internationally; and it is difficult to do this when. it is governed by a law with merely local state effect. I suspect, also, he wanted to take the wind out of the sails from any campaign the Gay and Lesbian Rights Lobby might have cared to mount; and, this he was entirely successful. Anyway, it seems the Lobby is not at all concerned. I have the impression it is run by lesbians, and the lesbians have got 16 as the age-of-consent anyway. The lesbians are more concerned with legal recognition of same-sex marriage - to make it easier for them to be able to adopt children - and this is the issue the Lobby is pursuing. Mind you, I'm not sorry the equal age-of-consent issue has been dropped. The main effect of making 16 as the age will be to have a more certain (it is easier to tell if a male is 16 than 18), more credible, and a more easily enforceable law, providing the other states come into line. Yet, the basic homosexual years for males - as opposed to super-males - are those before 16. Most super- males, before they are 16, will have been busy chasing younger boys. And, it is a point that these were targeted by the Royal Commission; so, don't run away with the idea that the Commission was only interested in adult paeds. See references to "children who abuse other children". An age-of-consent of 16 is not going to help the kids at all. Charitably, I suspect the Lobby may have considered these matters in private; although, publicly, their sole concern has been the ideological matter of the equality of the genders before the law.

So, what is the system? It is the name I have given to what is generally called the establishment. The establishment was a term originally applied to Britain's administrative division of its public service, and made familiar to us through the TV series Yes Minister. I wanted a term to have a wider application, and which could be applicable to the judiciary and to such press barons as Rupert Murdoch; but, in modem usage, the establishment does have this wider applicability anyway.

The TV series, The Aristocracy, explored the present-day status of the old aristocracy of Great Britain. I suggest that the system is a collective term for a modem aristocracy, whose presence is as applicable to Australia as to Britain, and indeed to most countries. Members of this exclusive club are not as flamboyant as they are - or were - in the old aristocracy. They do not wear gorgeous raiment. It fact it would be more usual for them to be distinctly low-key, as they are in Yes Minister. Rupert Murdoch wants to abolish the Monarchy, because it is the figurehead of the old order, and so obsolete. But, my guess is that he is merely giving it notice to reinvent itself, and when it does, he will give it welcome as the figurehead of the new order. Even more so as it will confer upon the new order the legitimacy of the old. If we do not get a Republic relatively quickly, this is what will happen. If we do not become a republic within ten years, the Monarchy will have "responded to the mood of the people", and Murdoch will have become a monarchist. So, we have not lost the aristocracy, it is merely that its make-up is different. It is important country to have a system. Hitler was able to come to power in Germany because Germany's old aristocracy had perished in the Great War. After a period of turmoil, the Communist Party established itself as the system in the Soviet Union. Now that this has gone, Russia is again going a period of turmoil; and will do so until a new system establishes itself. So, since I believe in political stability and the rule of law, I am not against the system per se. But I am concerned to expose it to discussion about its sexual policies. On its role in the establishment of the rule of law, I refer the reader to the writings of H L A Hart, and to his recognition principle. Although Hart would never have admired it, I suspect there is also a mystical element in the law of law, of which jurists should take note.

I suggest that the relationship of the legislature to the system is that of the traditional one of the Commons to the Lords. Both want to be the powers-that-be and in this matter their interests clash. Members of the legislature are not normally members of the system. Although there are exceptions, as with Winston Churchill, traditionally members of the Commons consisted of the minor gentry and middle-class. Normally, the middle-class prospers under the patronage of the system, for which it functions as the executors of its policies. This is the most blatant in the case of schoolteachers, psychologists, and journalists - especially the latter. Politicians in power will toe the line. For long, the Labor Party did not enjoy the patronage of the system, and it remained out of power; but this seems to be no longer so. Maverick politicians like Deirdre Grusovin and Franca Arena, who are out of power, resent the system; and this is another perspective on the genesis of the Wood Royal Commission.

The system derives much of its power from its control of the people's sexual lives. But to do this, it must maintain credibility by seeming to practice what it preaches. People who walk the corridors of power have a fair idea of what really goes on. What these mavericks did was to try and destroy the reputation of the system by bringing against it accusations of it countenancing within its ranks that which it most firmly sets itself against, paedophilia. This comes out very clearly in Franca Arena's final accusations, after the Report was published; when she accused the Parliament and Royal Commission of colluding to stifle the truth. But, apart from this, I suspect that even the most respectable politicians felt a secret joy at the prospect of getting at the boss. As it was, it was very much a case of the judge sitting on his own cause. This must undermine the credibility of his findings - the judge being the Royal Commission as a whole, and the cause being the reputation of the system, of which the Commission was a part. The Report was published to the howls of "whitewash".

My message to the system is that it is living in a world - a society - whose nature is changing rapidly from a hierarchical model to a libertarian model. It is changing from a society where everybody is born in his place, and is educated to it; to a society where the focus is upon the individual, who is able to, and indeed must, make his own way in the world. A job is no longer created for you. You make your own. A libertarian legal system is not one, which is a free for all for everybody. But, rather than the focus being on the sovereign's issue of commands which have to be obeyed, or the penalty suffered, it is upon the protection of the rights of the individual. I am writing of the criminal law here. Our civil law has always been about the individual. So has our criminal procedural law. But sometimes our legislature thinks it is a gunman when it makes the law. The criminal law should be about our right to hold property without it being at risk from a stronger person. It should be about our right not to have our liberty taken away from us, because it is to the advantage of someone to do this. The law should be about these things. It should not be about trying to make us good. A libertarian would maintain that our consciences are just as much our private property as our houses; and that trespass upon them is even more of a crime. This is one of my fundamental objections to the law about paedophilia. Laws designed to make us good are all failures; laws against gambling, laws against prostitution, laws against drugs; laws designed to regulate and limit the drinking of alcohol; all of these have been failures, and chief areas of corruption of the police service. Nobody was surprised at the findings of the Royal Commission into the police service in the area of drugs. It found little evidence of corruption in the area of paedophilia. I would reckon that this is because paedophilia is essentially victimless crime - whatever the propaganda might say - and corruption is inherently difficult to detect in situations where there are two satisfied customers, and nothing more. And this is apart from suggestions of cover-ups. The Child Protection Enforcement Agency is the heir of the old Vice-Squad, which had the reputation of being very corrupt indeed. With the greatly increased police powers in the area of paedophilia, there will have to be an increase in corruption, as surely as night follows day. I do not like payment for sex. Inducement is the bedfellow of threats. If you don't do what I want, I won't give you what is in my hand. But prostitution is also the bedfellow of sexual oppression. So, what this Royal Commission has done, is to encourage a form of child-rape just as our drug laws have as their consequences all the crime which is associated with drugs. And child prostitution will have just as much crime associated with it as drugs. The new law - the implemented recommendations of the Royal Commission - will be an ill wind, which will do nobody any good.

Incidentally, I have not overlooked the possibility of the Commission having been used by groups within the system as a tool for their private agendas; including the Roman Catholic Church's attempt to impose a rigorous celibacy upon its clergy and religious brethren. James Wood read the riot act to the Church on the subject of the true meaning of the celibacy oath.

The Royal Commission was most concerned to distance itself from matters and attitudes which might jeopardize its reputation in the eyes of reasonable people; and I am referring to the twin matters of Repressed Memory Syndrome and Satanic Ritual Abuse. I suggest that the system must move with the times, and that, in the end, its preoccupation with paedophilia will damage it. The system will survive in a libertarian world. It has to if that world is to survive; because libertarianism is even more dependent upon the rule of law that its hierarchical alternative; because that alternative can lean upon the power of the gunman. The gunman can have no place in a libertarian legal system whatsoever. The system has to see that its function is to guarantee the liberties of the community of which it forms a part. Its function is not to enslave that community. We have been subjected, over the past few years, to very heavy doses of social constructionist propaganda. This is called, in less exalted language, political correctness. It works for some of the time for some of the people - as somebody said. But once the perception grows that we are being conned, we become very resentful; and some turn to very unpleasant solutions, like the One Nation Party, as the Germans turned to Hitler. Once the system loses its credibility, it no longer exists; and as we have seen, the lack of an effective system is the reason why the Nazis came to power. The Review is a personal point of view. But I am not the only person thinking along these lines on the paedophile issue. The system is denying us a voice; and hopes, through fear, to keep us effectively silent. But, I have done my gaol. I have nothing to fear; and I have nothing to gain by remaining silent. I hope the system will heed my warning about its credibility.

Political parties, particularly right-wing parties like One-Nation, like tough law and order policies, because they see themselves as gunmen; and when in a position of power, and a position to legislate, successful gunmen. They see their opponents as a vanquished enemy, which has either to submit or be severely punished. Law is about their supremacy, nothing more. Once our government becomes nothing more than a matter of competing gangs of gunmen, we will have degenerated into a dictatorship, concerned solely with its survival and freedom to plunder. Our bulwark against this is the system. It is only the system, which can command enough consensuses to found a true system of law. Once the system loses enough confidence in itself to chase the Pauline Hansons of this country in its legal policies, it will have sown the seeds of its destruction. Basically, populist criminal law is about vengeance, not about preventing crime except by the sheer weight of fear. Basically, the people are crying out for blood. When the system abdicates from its responsibilities, we are left with mob rule.

The system's teaching that sex is evil is taking root in the young, I have seen evidence of it, especially in regard to homosexuality. I get a daily lecture from the 12-year-old Ginger Meggs Gang; which I listen with rather more attention than the Gay and Lesbian Rights Lobby. I am being told I am a very evil man in such terms that would bring joy to Justice James Wood's heart. It is of an age which is on the knife-edge between going forwards into adulthood or regressing backwards into infancy. All the signs are that the latter will triumph; and the best prop a regressed person can have is heroin; which imparts the illusion of the omnipotence of infancy. In one way or another, depression and suicide are its likely fate. In the face of the power of the system I am quite helpless. Justice Wood would probably accept the casualties in the same spirit as Field Marshal Haig, in the Great War, accepted his. The system would rather have drugs than sex. The good faith of the system's policies on drugs has long been under fire. Justice Wood is a puritan who hates hedonism. But, Justice Wood; a drug addict is far more of a self-centered hedonist than somebody who gets pleasure from sex and intimate relationships. In general, we are moving into a libertarian society because economic forces are pushing us. As production becomes more and more efficient, so suppliers have to become ever more competitive if they are to survive. The old hierarchical society just was not efficient. We knew our place and accepted it, and coasted through our working lives doing what we were told, and obeying the rulebook. As we are approaching the twenty-first century, this will not work; and even enough Justice Woods to encircle the globe holding hands will not make it work.

I have a further point to make about my hypothetical sex offenders' program. I have stressed that I would teach the importance of a close personal nexus with the boy before there is sex, in this way building up such a relationship of mutual trust and esteem that an appeal to the law would be unthinkable. I have stressed the necessity for purity of consent, with inducements possibly staining the consent almost as much as threats; with inducements implying a threat - the threat of no compliance, no payment.

I now want to emphasize the necessity of the paed's avoidance of those positions of institutional power, which might bring him into contact with boys. A teacher having an affair with a pupil always must carry a suspicion that the consent has been stained. And, the judicial role of a teacher, Where he makes performance assessments, makes such situations very difficult. Paeds seek such positions, and this was a matter of censure by the Commission, to overcome normal difficulties in making contact with boys. But, there is a natural correction. A paed's natural relationship with boys precludes power in the classroom, the tendency is for the paed teacher to find it extremely difficult to establish enough discipline and control to be able to teach at all. I have been through this myself, and fortunately never made it to my teacher's diploma. Boys don't sense my age and the fact that I am an adult. The Ginger Meggs Gang lectures me on morals, just as if I was a person its own age. I am not in a natural position of authority. Which is good if I am after solid gold sexual consent. But bad, if I am in a classroom. Incidentally, on the matter of inducements, any offer on the part of the paed will seriously reduce him in the eyes of his prospect and threaten the essential strong personal nexus. Most of the witnesses before the Royal Commission appear to have been rent-boys or ex-rent-boys. What the Commission saw was the sordid side of paedophilia. But, as I have remarked before, this sort of thing is the predictable result of the system's own attitudes and policies. A purist could argue that the very word "paedophilia" should not be being used in this context at all. "Paedophilia" means child love not child exploitation. Even worse was its use in connection with the Belgium murders). This was about the white slavery of very young girls. What the system is doing, and I suspect deliberately doing, is to damn paedophilia by association; and the more such opportunities arise, the better it is pleased.

I have still yet another point to make about paeds seeking positions of institutional power. The courts use, in connection with this, the judgment "breach of trust". They are right, because there is an analogy with breach of trust in financial matters, where company directors or trustees intermix the moneys in their trust with their own, to their personal benefit. It is not just against the law, it is immoral to use positions of trust for unauthorized personal benefit in any context. Paeds, who do this, leave themselves just as much open as company directors or trustees of deceased estates, who do the same. The Royal Commission was much concerned to point out the manipulative and devious ways of paedophiles. Sadly, it was correct. But again, the system has only itself to blame. Even paeds have got a survival instinct.

From what we know of human nature, it is a reasonable suspicion that some members of the system are paedophiles. Unfortunately, it is likely that sordidness characterizes the paedophilia, which is practiced. Whilst probably actual threats are rare, there is likely to be considerable emphasis upon inducement - payment in other words. The enormous risks involved probably ensure that the boys are threatened with dire penalties if they talk. The boys will probably only rarely know the identity of their clients, but they will pick them as being persons of power and authority. Not only will there be no close personal nexus, there will not be any nexus at all. Sex at its very lowest denominator is what this is about. The stage is set for corruption at its most rampant. This is the paedophilia that the system does know about and is at least one reason for its negative attitudes. The heavyweight illegality, the carefully nurtured social disapproval - the Commission recommended a continuous media and, schools "awareness" campaign; which I know is working, from my contact with the Ginger Meggs Gang. And the secrecy, which such policy necessitates, and which sets the scene for the sordidness, makes any positive education and possibility for improvement impossible. We were very fortunate that decriminalization (for the over-18s) occurred when it did, because it did enable the safe-sex programs, which have proved so successful in containing HIV. The system is eating its heart out that AIDS did not entirely destroy the gay community. We do not know to what extent HIV infects the under 18s, because investigation is impossible. Any kid going to a relevant clinic would be reported to the police, and the kids know this. A couple of days ago, a family containing a couple of boys in their early teens came to one of our functions - a gay function, not a paed function. And they revealed complete ignorance about HIV; which indicates a lack of safe-sex education in the schools. I don't blame the teachers for not raising the subject. If I were in their position, I wouldn't either.

I would say that the Commission was probably fight in its assertion that paedophilia is destroying young lives. But the answer can only be a complete reversal from the present punitive attitudes. I suspect that the Commission was well aware of this; and the only remaining question is; was it bad or mad.

The news to hand (22/6/98) - SBS, not the ABC, which has to closely toe the official line - is that England now has the equal age-of-consent of 16. During the campaign to change the law, the opponents of the change were frank about the motive behind the discriminatory law being to send the community the message of moral disapproval of homosexuality; and this was certainly the effect. So, why the deafening silence from our Gay and Lesbian Rights Lobby? So, it is busy pursuing legal recognition of gay relationships, - homosexual marriage - even against considerable opposition from within the gay community. We want the law to stay out of our lives. But, it is a conservative, safe, and generally respectable issue - and was mentioned on the ABC news. Respectable gays hate paeds don't they: I was about to wish the pox upon respectable gays; but this wouldn't be nice.

So, the Lobby is campaigning for legal recognition of gay and lesbian relationships. For my part, I believe the law should not have any part in human intimate relationships. The law is about money and property. You are very ill advised to go to the law if there is no money in it. The Lobby is aware of this, and its campaign is about property rights. It could well be that any success it has would land us with even more property liabilities. And anyway, I thought the Lobby was about liberty, not money grubbing. I'm sure that the law in the paedophilia area is being driven largely by money, in the shape of victims' compensation; and the more harrowing the tale, the greater the compensation. We now have victim's impact statements read out to the court before sentencing. The more harrowing the statements are, the longer will be the sentences, and the more will be the compensation.

So, the last of my legal recommendations is the abolition of victim's compensation. These victims impact statements are also about vengeance. Politicians love vengeance; because it is about blood, and the voters' love of blood. But it has no place in the legal system of a supposedly Christian country. Christ's teaching about vengeance is contained in the injunction to turn the other cheek. And anyway, the law is supposed to be rational, and vengeance is not rational; and it institutionalizes state violence. Payback drives the criminal. It should not also drive the state. So, I suppose I can add yet again to the list of reforms by asking for the abolition of the "retribution" component in sentencing. The law should be about the abolition of crime, not about fishing in the same dirty pool. Don't hold your breath. Politicians are merely crims in suits. Is this a bit strong? Perhaps, or perhaps not.

I have a thought. It's probably fair to say that most convicted paedophiles leave gaol very angry men. A recurrent theme in the report was the necessity to keep a close watch on released paedophiles, far more so than with other categories of offender. It occurs to me that there could be a rational reason for this. Angry men can be a bit unpredictable. I have an outlet for my anger, but most have not. Actually, it is all a bit paranoiac and savors of a guilty conscience. Because released paeds do not have a high re-offend rate; and especially not in the violent crime category (always allowing that paedophilia is counted as a violent crime - this is one of the things which makes me angry.

Commissioner Justice Wood.

Royal Commission on New South Wales Police Service,

GPO Box 3880,

Sydney, 2001. ,

11th July 1996

Sir,

In response to your public invitation, I forward the following submission for your attention and scrutiny.

My name is Geoffrey William LEONARD, of 5 Rosamond Street, Hornsby, NSW, 2077. My date of birth is 10th January 1934. My occupation is pensioner. I graduated Bachelor of Arts from Sydney University on lst of May 1982 (majoring in philosophy, trad & mod, and religious studies. And was awarded my Diploma in Law (Solicitors Admission Board) on the 3rd of April 1987. On the 1st August 1990, 1 was given a 3 1/4 years custodial sentence (2 1/2 minimum) for the offense of sexual intercourse with male under the age of 18. My prison administration number is 189674. I was released into ten months probation on the 5th February 1993, after serving all but approximately three weeks of my sentence in HM Prison Cooma. I have published two books relevant to the submission: Razorwire ISBN 0646279378, this was written in prison. The second book is Punished for Love 2nd Edition ISBN 0959105336.

The subject of my submission is Topic (g) Review of the relevant legislation concerning matters such as the appropriateness of the present offenses, the age of consent, investigative powers and the likes to ensure that the legal system does not fail victims of child sexual abuse. I append copies of my court documents and prosecution evidence to the submission.

My recommendation is that the present legislation remain as it is, except possibly that the age of consent for females should be raised to 18, in parity with male to male consent. But I do recommend that drastic changes be made in the interpretation and administration of the sexual law, to bring it into line with factual reality. At present, the law, as interpreted and administered is so built upon presumption upon presumption that its connection with the significant facts ranges from tenuous to nonexistent. I began my legal education with Prof. W L Morison's Legal Institutions, where he asked about how well our legal machinery is equipped to find the truth. In the area under discussion, my answer would now have to be, very badly indeed.

The problem stems from the law being properly concerned with sexual activity only as the behavior infringes personal freedom. In general, the proper concern of the law with behavior of a person is where the behavior infringes upon the lawful freedoms of another. The general name applied to this behavior is violence, and becomes the concern of the Crown, when it offends against the Queen's peace. In the context of the law, sexual conduct is violent sexual conduct, and involves a predator and his prey (or colorful words with similar affect). To put it shortly, the sexual law is about rape. I will holdover discussion of the law as the upholder of public morality until later in this submission.

The theory of sex which attempts to generalize the legal experience of sexuality to being a scientific law of human behavior is referred to as the power theory: For every pleasure there must be a pain, because pleasure is taking, and pain is giving. When you are having pleasure from the body of another human being, you are taking something from that person, and that person is giving. Therefore, that person must be suffering physical pain and personal humiliation in order to give you pleasures. Nobody is likely to be put in this position unless they are inherently weaker. Hence, the person experiencing the pleasure in a sexual act is the most powerful person, whom the law always assumes to be the male. The weaker party, the one who experiences pain, is either a woman or a child (of either gender). Age confers power. Hence, the wider the age gap between the male and his victim, the more power he is asserting. Hence, in a sexual act between an old man and a child, the power gap is very great indeed, and the law punishes accordingly. The retributive function of punishment is applied; and, because the greater the age gap, the greater the pleasure, the greater must be the retributive price of that illegal pleasure. The law applies the dictum that might is right. Which comes (I presume) from medieval times when the law was the expression of the will of the king; the king being the most powerful person in the jurisdiction, and when social hierarchy was closely associated with power (as indeed it still is). The adult male is the superior gender, because it is the most powerful; and, to abdicate that power is a disgraceful thing. This is why the passive homosexual was (is?) considered an immoral human being. A woman who "submits" is considered a "fallen" human being. A child, and a child is a person who lacks a "formed" mind, i.e. a mind incapable of making a moral choice, is put into the position of weakness, thus suffering the loss of his inherent morality, or "innocence". This is the legal nature of child sexual abuse. Marriage takes sex out of the legal arena; although, up to comparatively recent times, the husband was the wife's master, and she had no property rights.

Since the legal view of sex is essentially about violence, so, it is submitted, is the concept of consent. In the legal view, a sexual act always involves somebody who asks, and somebody, who assents, which are the stronger and weaker partners. What the law is doing is enabling consent to be given in a situation which otherwise would be illegal because it is about injury to the person. The enabling function of the law has its strongest expression in its civil division. Where, for instance, it enables the making of a will in circumstances, which would have been prohibited in feudal times; and, in a sense, this is the meaning of marriage.

That the law regards consent to sex as being consent to being the recipient of an injurious act is the reason why I think the general age of consent should be 18 years. The legal view of the sexual act is that essentially it is an act characterized by sadomasochism, which is not something that I think, should receive legal encouragement. 18 is the age we become legal adults, and the principle of nondiscrimination in the law means that it should be the same in the sexual as in the other areas of life. There comes a time when we should be allowed to choose whatever road to hell we like; and, by general world consensus, this age is 18.

But, is the legal view of sex correct? Sure, it could be true of sex, which comes within the legal ambit; but, am I here because my father delighted in subjecting my mother to pain and humiliation on the marriage bed? To which she consented by reason of religious duty, or simply because she did not want to lose her status as a married woman, with all that that implies, and all that which goes with it? I do not remember my father clearly, but I think this is most unlikely. My mother was sometimes savagely critical of my father, but I sensed a deep underlying affection. When the sexual act is one of deliberately inflicting pain and humiliation of somebody else, we think of it as a perversion; on both sides when willingly endured, and rape when it isn't. I suggest that in the sexual act as ordinarily experienced, the very concept of consent is irrelevant. The sexual act ordinarily is a mutual thing, where both parties take an active role. The law assumes that women are always passive. That is not what I have observed. I know that I do not enjoy the sexual act unless my partner is actively willing; and, I believe in this that I am the normal human being.

What I am suggesting is that the law is only concerned with a particular, and very narrow form of sexuality, which involves violence and hurt. Also the law is presupposing a very authoritarian kind of society, where women are subservient to men and everybody under the age of 18 is subservient to everybody else, and have no rights whatsoever. It is interesting that the law always refers to somebody under 18 as a child. In ordinary parlance, we cease being children when we are about 12. After that we become adolescents, then young people, then finally adults. In my case, the 16-year-old "victim" was referred to as a "young boy" (the police like this expression). A 16-year-old is neither a child nor a young boy; and, if he behaves as if he is, he is developmentally retarded. Again, there is a nexus between coming under the protection of the court and being developmentally retarded. A person who is developmentally retarded may need to be protected against becoming a victim of sadism. But, because the criminal law is exclusively concerned with negatives (a fundamental assumption is that we can do what we are not commanded not to do), a developmentally retarded person, coming within the ambit of the law, is likely to be damaged even further.

I suggest that the administration of the law should be concerned with keeping it out of areas where it does not belong. And, in general, it does not belong in the bedroom, no matter what the ages and sexes of the occupants are. The law does go to great lengths to justify its presence in the bedroom; and, I suggest so to the injury of truth and justice. When one of the parties in the bedroom does make a legal complaint, this indeed is indicative of something being wrong, and probably requiring a legal remedy. But, when third parties are making the complaints, and when the police and other government authorities are taking a vigorous proactive (as distinct from reactive) role, then this is where damage and injustice is happening. If you carefully read the evidence against me, you will find that the boys' father forced his sons to confess. At the sentencing hearing (I pleaded guilty to all charges), the police witness explicitly stated that the boys had gone to their father. Which is indicative that the police recognize the truth of what I am saying. The effect, and the intended effect, was to prejudice the judge against me.

To give my case the appearance of violence, there were two indecent assault charges. These were false. One is involved where the statement has me saying, "And now you have had your fun, I'll have mine." This (like young boy") is standard police-speak. It is not how I speak; and, in any case, is out of context as I took the passive role in the sexual act, which followed. The other charge arose from a supposed conversation (I have no recollection of it taking place) where he said he would be a wife to me if I left his brother alone. If it had taken place, it is consonant with the interpretation of being a request to be faithful. In any case the conversation was supposed to occur after the relationship had commenced; and, in the event, I was the "wife". The police were not know that I was going to plead guilty, and I suggest they made the "improvements" in order to sway a jury who, otherwise, in the absence of evidence of violence, might well have refused to convict. Incidentally, the statement supposedly made by Y, the younger boy, apparently was signed by the police officer, and not by him. By the way, the family laid great store on sexual fidelity. And my failure in this matter is the one part of my conduct, which I regret. The evidence, whilst being substantially true, was improved in other ways. The first sexual event occurred, not on the trip to Parramatta, but to Galston Gorge with X at the wheel of the van. He had his L-plates). He drove to the end of a fire-trail. I do not think that he was exactly expecting a lecture on jurisprudence, especially since this was about 10 O'clock at night.

This did not effect the fact that I broke the law, but it should have effected the sentence (and possibly would have swayed the jury had I fought the case). So, the police did their best to play it down.

Why didn't I fight the case? First, the hard evidence of the letter made it extremely problematic that I could have won. And secondly, I wanted to get it over and done with as cheaply and quickly as possible. The indecent assault charges were false, but it would have made little sense fighting them whilst admitting to the rest. Then, I did not anticipate that I was going to get the sentence that I got. I admitted I broke the law, but I saw my breach as being in the nature of a disregard of a regulation. I was not to fully understand until well into my sentence that I was in prison for rape. And that thereafter I was to be regarded as a man of wild, violent and ungovernable sexual passions; and picking "young boys" for the sole reason that they are weaker and smaller than myself. In fact, X was nearly six feet high; and, in a weight lifting contest, lifted nearly twice the weight that I managed. Anyway, since when is a youth of sixteen normally physically weaker than a man of over fifty? In this area of the law, it seems that facts are unimportant.

On Friday, July 5, 1996, The Sydney Morning Herald published an account of the previous day's Royal Commission's proceedings under the headline, "Child sex list sent to police vanished. "This was of special interest to me because I was in Cooma Prison at the time of the events referred to. Your witness, Mr. Doyle, is reported as saying, ". . . the fixated paedophiles were of particular concern because they did not regard themselves as offenders and were uninterested in rehabilitation programs". He defined fixated paedophiles, "as those with an exclusive preference for boys". Note: In terms of the definitions adopted by the Commission in its report, he was speaking of preferential paedophiles.

In fact, in paedophile circles, a person is not regarded as a true pedophile if his interest extends to anybody over the age of ten. I assume a "true" paedophile would be a "preferential" paedophile. In my view, this is a reflection of a cult rather than psychological reality. That the Royal Commission is extending the meaning of paedophile to any man with an interest in males right up to the age of 18, and in one case (Wl), even over this age. In this case, the Commission had to be reminded by the gay press that 18 is the age of consent for male to male sex. The age of 18 has little physiological or emotional significance, and it is not written in stone. There is, in fact, little difference between a "young boy" of 17 and an adult of 19. And it is unlikely that a "paedophile", who likes sleeping with seventeen-year-olds, would reject a nineteen-year-old; or indeed, anybody in his twenties. Sexual preference is a complex question, and I have gone into it in depth in Punished for Love. If you are interested, you can refer to this. Here, I will confine myself to the point that we generally relate best sexually to those with whom we have the most rapport. The true paedophile is a person who can establish the most wonderful rapport with children, and there is nobody less like the monstrous rapist of the legal and popular imagination. It is little wonder that child-like (to have rapport with somebody you need to be like him) "preferential" paedophiles" were no match for the Mr. Doyles of Cooma Prison. They were not on the same wavelength; and, it was only with great difficulty that I, with all my legal training and lifelong pre-occupation with ideas, that I was able to tune in. I became extremely angry, and I am still extremely angry, but this is by the way. I should mention, here, that I knew two of the three paeds mentioned by Mr. Doyle (I cannot pick the identity of the third. I think it is unlikely it was me). One, your witness Dl, was obsessed with programs and psychologists, who had to practically chase him away. But both him and the other one had cumulative sentences which, for technical reasons, did not have parole attached to them (the shortest sentence was under the prerequisite 3 years). So, they did not have to attend SOAP (Sexual Offenders Assessment Program) sessions.

I attended many, many SOAP sessions, many more than normally required because the first two sequences were prematurely aborted. All inmates with parole on their sentences had to go to SOAP in order to get the prerequisite psych report for the Offenders Review Board. I learnt the rules. In prison, you do what you are told to do, and you say what you are required to say. I wrote a long letter to the chief psychologist, saying what he wanted to hear. I repeated the terms of this letter in my Application for Parole, for the ORB. It apparently liked what it read, for I was duly released. The Application is published in both Razorwire and Punished for Love. But do not feel too indignant about this deception. I did not offend on parole, and I have not offended since. In fact, I have not had intimate relations with anybody since. And I rather doubt if I am now capable of intimate behavior. The trauma was just too great. So, at least with me, the system has won, and the psychs have won. I am angry, but who cares about that? And I am very lonely and lead a hell of a life, but, again, who cares about that? But what about my "victims". It must have been a nasty experience for them to be dragged before the police and told to tell all. Privacy mattered to both boys, and this must have been the mother of a privacy invasion. My punishment must have been a nasty jolt for them, for they knew what really happened. However, I have had no contact with them since, so all of this is surmise.

I did not realize it when I was in Cooma but it seems to be extremely unlikely that the statements of evidence were on my file. All the prison knew. All Mr. Doyle knew. All the psychs knew, and all the senior officers knew, was what is on my charge sheet. Which, of course, is got up to look as bad as possible, with its language having little relationship with the facts at all. To the psychs, and Mr. Doyle, I was a rapist; and, had I taken a firm stand, I would have been merely "minimizing" and "denying". What was the point? Mr. Doyle is careful to use the "correct" words like "prey" and "molest". To him, and other like him, the words define the reality; and they are empowered by them. Mr. Doyle notes that only six inmates, who passed through his program, have re-offended. He seems to think that those, who have not admitted that they did wrong, have, will, inevitably re-offend. No, the effect of gaol on all that go through it is the same, whether there is guilt or not. Gaol is about violence. The experience of gaol is traumatic. It destroys people. And it could well be that the destruction is greater in the absence of guilt. I wonder whether there are figures on the suicide rate of ex-inmates, probably not. Mr. Doyle is obviously hinting at the possibility of indefinite detention. This will satisfy what is apparently his inner craving for vengeance. But, I suggest, will be both unjust and a waste of money. You are well aware of the arguments against indefinite detention, so it would be pointless, and a waste of space, to repeat them here.

The matter of the list of 7,200 names, together with personal details, takes us into deep water. I suggest the motive of this inquiry is to find evidence of the terrible paedophile network which, certain politicians believe, is being suppressed by the police, either because of corrupt payments of money, or other reasons which are corrupt in a wider sense.

There is a widespread belief in what is known as the Dracula theory of homosexual orientation. Whereby one's first sexual experience determines one's gender preferences forever. Certain especially evil homosexuals, the paedophiles, are the agents of Satan. All homosexuals are in the army of Satan but paedophiles are his front-line troops. Paedophiles, as agents of Satan, seduce and destroy the innocence of children, and render them forever after homosexuals, which terrible injury is the real nature of child sexual abuse. My trial judge gave me reason to believe he was a believer in this theory. There is an international conspiracy of paedophiles, whose eventual aim is to take over the world for Satan, by turning the world homosexual, and an abomination in the sight of the Lord. We are, in other words, in the grips of a world conspiracy by Satan. And Mr. Doyle discovered an enormous dossier on the conspirators, which the police (in the corrupt grip of Satan) of course lost.

It seems that there is, or was, a list; but it would have to be a forgery (but it has been suggested that it could have been some kind of magazine mailing list). Even if the evil network does exist, it is not the nature of any network to give document evidence of itself. Networks, even perfectly legal ones pursuing legal purposes, do not have listed memberships. The gay community is a kind of network. I meet my friends but I know very few names, and still fewer addresses. I know a few telephone numbers, but very few. There are a few people in the gay community with names and addresses and telephone numbers and faxes. But they are the front men. I would be one of those. My closest friend does not have a telephone, and his address is a post-office box. And I would be extremely surprised if any of my friends were active paedophiles. Some years ago, a few paeds tried to form a lobby group, on the lines of the gay lobby groups, for the purpose of bringing down the age-of-consent. This was called BLAZE. It was not a conspiracy to procure boys. Paedophiles, and other people, have to combine if they desire political clout, but they are very much individuals when it comes to romance. You devoted a great deal of time to Phil Bell. Did you find that he was a part of a conspiracy? I did not know Bell, and in fact never heard of him, but I have met people like him; and it is very much a matter of, "You toucher my boy, and I toucher your face." I was only associated with BLAZE for a short period (as its nominated public officer to steer its incorporation), but in that time, I never met any of the boys. The incorporation failed because not enough names and addresses could be supplied to satisfy the rules. The authorities had learned from their experience with the gay lobby groups, and BLAZE was totally destroyed before it could get off the ground.

So, what can we say about the list? I suggest somebody sent it to the inmate (Dl?) with full knowledge that it would be intercepted. All prison mail is intercepted and opened. I cannot confidently suggest the motives for compiling such a list, except to add fuel to the evil network conspiracy theory. Mr. Doyle states that a copy was made and handed to the inmate. He must surely know who the inmate is. I suggest you contact the inmate and ask him about the list. He may still have it. My guess is that its purpose is best served by its casting its shadow in limbo.

I suggest that the purpose of the Royal Commission can be summarized as the unmasking of the police conspiracy to cover up the evil network. I suggest that it is a waste of time and money, because there is no evil network. In regard to the "list" suspicion is falling on the child mistreatment units. The one, which dealt with my case, is at Chatswood. I assume you it was very diligent indeed, even to the extent of blurring the facts around the edges, as already outlined.

At the beginning of this submission I proffered what is called the libertarian theory of the nature of the law that is it is about the guaranteeing the freedom of the citizen. It was on this basis that I recommend that the law depart from the bedroom; and only in so far as violence, intimidation and fear are elements in the sexual act, has it any place. I took the minimalist view and suggested the law remain as it is, but be administered in the libertarian philosophy. A more radical plan would be to scrap the whole of the sexual law as it is, and have simply a law against rape, with proof of actual violence and/or intimidation being an essential element in the conviction. In the context, I suggest the abolition of all legal presumptions about human behavior, which flourish like weeds in this area, be abolished. The libertarian theory of the law is really a species of natural law, where a person is seen as having natural rights, which should not be infringed. These are our "freedoms". I am very often called "paedophile" and "poof"' when walking on the road. It happened to me this morning, on my way home from shopping. Apart from my having paid for all the sexual offenses I have ever committed, this is a form of violence and assault, since its purpose is to induce fear. The tone of the voice of the youth, the perpetrator, made it very clear that this was his intention. We have a natural right to go about our ordinary and lawful business free of gratuitous abuse from strangers. A woman being called a "slut" in the workplace has a similar right. Sexuality is an easy target, because, in our sexuality, we give our trust and are at our most vulnerable and open. These people are not moralists. They are people seeking easy victims upon which to inflict injury and humiliation.

In law school, we learn about Austinian positivism, where the law is seen as the command of the sovereign. The thing about positivism is that it disclaims any moral content. The sovereign is the person or institution with the effective power in the jurisdiction, and legal positivism sees the law as being about power, without moral content whatsoever. H L A Hart, in Concept of the Law refines the idea by emphasizing "recognition". When a schoolmaster canes a pupil in front of the class, he is doing so because of an implied recognition by the class of his right to cane. In terms of brute power, the class is overwhelmingly the stronger party; and, if it wanted to could take the cane and break it. But, for all this, positivism is about law in a hierarchical, authoritarian society; as against libertarian law, which sees everybody as being essentially free and equal. Austinian positivism was a reaction to the oldest form of natural law theory, as declaimed by Sir William Blackstone. The Sovereign of Austinian positivism can be completely amoral. We are obliged to obey Hitler if he were sovereign just as surely as if Mother Theresa were sovereign. Few people have been thoroughgoing positivists since the trials of Nazi war criminals; which recognized that we have an individual moral duty over and above the commands of the sovereign. I am, in other words, morally obliged to disobey and oppose any law, which I feel to be unjust and evil. It takes great courage, but there you are. This is why it is my duty to write this submission and why it is my duty to oppose the present administration and interpretation of the sexual law of New South Wales. I do so in full awareness of possible unpleasant consequences.

The natural law of Sir William Blackstone was the law of God, God being the positivist's' sovereign one step removed. The God of Biblical fundamentalists can be just as capricious as any sovereign the positivist can turn up. This is the god who hates homosexuality. Contrawise, Satan loves homosexuality and uses (according to the Dracula theory) paedophiles to subvert and convert the world. Satan is the great conspirator, and he is creating and using the paedophile network for his evil purposes. Before 1984, our law re homosexuality reflected this view, and this legal school hopes, by making as much use of the age of consent as possible, to again make homosexuality effectively illegal. In this way, NSW law will again reflect the true will of God. After all, if it is the ultimate wickedness to sleep with a 17 year old, it must be just as wicked to sleep with a 19 year old, or even a 90 year old; and, whatever the strict law may say, the message is loud and dear.

Your witness, Mr. Doyle, is quoted by the SMH (5/7/96) as saying about the "fixated" paedophiles, "I don't believe that we can assist them in any way. Society generally cannot help them, other than change the law, and I don't think it is in the best interests of this country to change the law so they can molest who they like".

Mr. Doyle is wrong. Sexual love is a delicate flower, and it is very susceptible to fear. Before 1984, punishment for homosexuality was draconian. I suggest most people, whose strongest sexual preference was for their own sex, married and had children. They weren't happy marriages, and probably the sexual relationship was, at best strained, and lasted only a short time. By and large, the law won. But won at a price. And the price was unhappiness and anger on perhaps a massive scale. I suggest part of the price was the occasional explosion of this anger and frustration. Accounts of the Great War show it to be frightful beyond imagination. If you try to put the clock back, I suggest you will to a very large degree succeed. But the price you will pay will be many, many people "flipping", like as in the recent, well publicized, massacres. At the present moment, there are no major conflicts in the world, and I suggest that the world is more peaceful than it has almost ever been. People, who live fulfilled and rewarding lives, and we cannot live fulfilling and rewarding lives unless there is real love and intimacy in them, and we are not irrationally violent. But the old-fashioned moralist would see a naturally nonviolent person as being decadent. Is this your view? I suggest that one of our natural rights is to live fulfilled and rewarding lives. I inner suggest that children, who are not allowed to express their growing sexual and emotional selves, will grow into sexually and emotionally crippled adults. I submit that a law that specifically aims to bring this about through fear is an evil and immoral law. A child's development normally involves older people, and this is in the sexual and emotional sphere as in any other.

A modern application of legal positivism is the doctrine that the criminal law should reflect community standards and values, the "community" being the sovereign. This could be used to justify the genocide activities of the Nazis. There is every indication that the wish of the German people of the time was the slaughter of the Jews. Does this make it right? This is the weakness of legal positivism. You will be under great pressure to bring down recommendations that will go some way to satisfy the community's craving for blood; and I suggest it is your moral duty to resist this pressure. Power is about blood and destruction. When the sovereign is about power he is about blood. Otherwise, rather than the master, he is the servant of the people.

Sex, which is about power, is likewise negative and destructive. I suggest that power sex is really anti-sex, with true sex being positive, and about love. I suggest that power sex is like an upside down cross, and relates to love like the antichrist relates to Christ. That is why I am quite happy to see the retention of the stringent laws against it, as at present appear in the statute book.

I am, by the way, a practicing Anglican. I do believe that the legal theory, which Christ would have approved of, is libertarianism. I believe that the concept of a bloodthirsty and capricious God is contrary to the spirit and content of Christ's teachings. I believe that Christ would have found the Satanic conspiracy theory, as described in these pages, to be an abomination; and perhaps, itself, a creation of Satan. As a lawyer, for me the highest ideal is justice. And in the light of this ideal, the conspiracy theory is totally evil.

I will finish with an observation. This is that the recent revelations in the Royal Commission about the role and activities of Messrs. Doyle and Wallis must have destroyed what rapport and trust existed between the inmates of Cooma Corrective Center and its non-custodial staff. Which would have destroyed the possibility of any positive outcomes Cooma's remedial programs might have had.

12th July 1996

Commissioner Justice Wood,

Royal Commission on NSW Police Service,

Dear Sir,

I refer to the account of the proceedings of the Royal Commission, Sydney Morning Herald, 12/7/96. In particular I refer to Mr. Zwiers's evidence: He told of an instance in which an inmate who helped staff a prison museum had devised away of luring visiting schoolboys into a museum storeroom. The scheme was discovered when another prisoner, CG16, wrote to a friend in prison in the United States that CG19 had a "cozy little place arranged." "Mr. Zwiers said the letter was sent to the police, who declined to act on it."

This is not evidencing police corruption, but merely that they knew their law. The evidence is a textbook example of hearsay which, if educed, would have been immediately rejected by the court. To me, it sounds like a little bit of light inmate talk, with no more significance than the banter at the bar coffee machine. I worked in the museum for the last 18 months of my sentence, and I can assure you it was very closely supervised indeed. The "storeroom" could only have referred to a garage where the stuff was packed after being sold. The possibility of its being a "cosy little place" never occurred to me even once.

It is considered good penology practice to move the inmate from maximum to minimum security as his sentence progresses; and, with each reduction, grant him an increase of freedom. One of the benefits is that release is not a matter of kicking wild animals out of a cage. It is felt to be good practice to an inmate, as he approaches his release day, to give him an opportunity to learn and practice self-restraint and responsible behavior, and this can only done when there is a degree of trust and freedom. The arts and crafts workshop, at Cooma, is B security, as is the tailor-shop. Inmates, who work in the tailor-shop, are normally sent to the prison farm, just out of town. Similarly, arts and crafts inmates were given an opportunity to go outside the walls to work in the museum. The alternative is to transfer all Cl and C2 inmates to separate prison farms, like Kirkconnell. I understand this is now the practice, but it was not when I was an inmate, and I served my full time in basically high B security conditions. As it happens, I was unable to go outside for the lasted 6 weeks of my sentence. But, whilst I was never officially told the reason, it is my understanding that it was because of a hiccup in my parole hearings - the Judge's Remarks were absent from the file. I understand it is normal practice to pull inmates in under these circumstances, because some react emotionally very badly, and are under a temptation to make a run for it.

In spite of the colorful newspaper reports, particularly in the Telegraph Mirror, Cooma Correctional Center is not a picnic; and, in fact is a very closely supervised and strict institution. It is my contention that these disclosures do no good at all, and merely serve as chaff for the chooks.

Yours faithfully,

Geoff Leonard

15th July 1996

Commissioner Justice Wood,

Royal Commission on New South Wales Police Service,

Dear Sir,

Reviewing my personal file of Sydney Morning Herald Royal Commission reports re Cooma Correctional Centre, I have noted a discrepancy, which reinforces my doubts about the reality and status of the 7,000 odd name paedophile list. On 10/7/96, Kate McClymont conclusively identifies the inmate to whom tile list was sent. In the report of 12/7/96, we read: "Mr. Zwiers said he had not been told of the discovery of the list, which was found in a prisoner's mail in late 1992 or 1993."

I have documentary evidence, a group photograph taken in circumstances where normally he would have been included, but where he is absent. The photograph was taken on or about 1/12/92. To my recollection, the inmate had long been sent back to Goulburn. But, the Commission does not have to depend on my recollection. Details of the transfer would be in both Cooma and Goulburn records. That Mr. Zwiers was not told of the discovery is indeed very strange, and even more strange is the fact that the discovery does not seem to have been entered into any of the gaol records.

On a matter of law, and it seems that on more than one occasion the Commission needs to have been reminded of its law, reports of paedophile activity in Cooma gaol are wrong. A criminal act must contain two basic elements, mens rea (mental element) and actus rea (physical element). In other words, there has to be an act, and the act has to have been made with malicious intent. There could never have been any paedophile activity in Cooma gaol, because there were no males under the age of 18. All the stuff about photographs of nephews and advertisements for boys' clothing may well establish the existence of mens rea but, without the act, there has been no offense. It is a basic assumption of the law that what is not explicitly prohibited is allowed. My research into the law re photography indicates to me that photographs which do not explicitly depict sexual activity (and other criteria not relevant here) do not come within the ambit of the law. 1 find it hard to believe that any officer, opening and examining the mail would have allowed material depicting explicit sexual activity involving males under the age of 18, into the gaol. I, personally, never saw such material. I would have thought that persons with paedophile sexual preferences indulging their fantasies would be more a protection for the law than otherwise. I submit that a male, whose sexual urges are satisfied by masturbation, normally does not seek further gratification, especially where such gratification can only be obtained in circumstances of extreme danger. I am aware that masturbation is considered by a substantial minority of the community to be a sin; but again, I submit the law is not properly about a morality that is not about fundamental human rights.

My worry is that the Commission believes homosexuality is a disease spread by paedophiles in the name of Satan. And that the Commission will be strongly disposed to accept a recommendation that steps be taken to identify males with paedophile sexual preferences. And to either ''treat" them or otherwise take measures to ensure they are never able to realize hew fantasies in action, all in the name of the protection of children. I suggest that the implementation of such a recommendation would the grossest violation of human rights since the Nazi extermination of the Jews, which was also carried out with (ostensibly) the very best motives and intentions.

Yours faithfully,

Geoff Leonard.

Please append this letter - together with the one dated 12th July 1996, to my submission,

Dated 11th July 1996.

In the week following the finish of the main manuscript, I thought of all the things I should have included but didn't. But, following the unpleasant discovery of the work necessary to make that manuscript presentable, I have taken advantage of the opportunity to include the extra material.

The importance of the four-gender theory of sexuality arises from the enormous difficulties in the personal identity department that come out of living in a two gender conceptual world. Men have to be forever proving - against the evidence of inner knowledge - that they are real men. And how can a real man be homosexual? In the gay world, the problem is as real and insoluble as in the straight world, with transsexuality being one "answer". The trendy gay answer is queer theory; which is making use of the old ploy of solving a problem by denying its existence. I have no doubt that a good deal of the fear of homosexuality and paedophilia, arising from the uncertainty of gender identity, comes from the belief in the false two gender conception of the human condition. My Ginger Meggs Gang is struggling with its emergent sexual identity. And those terrible media people on TV are still struggling with theirs. The answer of the Royal Commission is to get rid of the paedophiles. It is absolutely essential that, if sexual liberation is to become a true reality, the four-gender theory be generally understood and accepted.

The second point relates to the function and role psychs and journalists are playing in this oppressive period of our sexual history. Both have it in common that they do not have firsthand knowledge of the area, which they have to present themselves as experts and authorities in. Journalists have first hand knowledge in, and are experts in, journalism. For the stuff of their stories, they have to depend secondhand from sources. So, if the sources are tainted - as would be normal with child sexual abuse - so are the stories. And the process of writing a story involves selection and emphasis; which further opportunities for "spin". And journalists have to consider the people for whom they write - again, further temptation for spin. And then, they have to consider the views of their media owners - more pressure for spin. And the journalists, themselves, have to be horses for courses. If I were a journalist, I would certainly find it easier and more congenial to write for the Herald than for the Tele.

Psychs have it in common with journalists that they are experts in areas other than those they present themselves to the world as being experts in. Psychs come in two varieties, psychiatrists and psychologists. Psychiatrists are medically trained, and see the mind in terms of the medical model; like a heart or a kidney say. In practical terms, their business is about patient behavior management by means of drugs. Paedophiles are people you treat by means of chemical castration. Of course, the mind is not like an organ at all, and psychiatrists are really people with much power and much foolishness - and lackeys of the ruling class.

The late nineteenth century is a time of brilliant discovery in physics. Particularly was the scientific world impressed by the elegant experimentation and thinking which led to the discovery and weighing of the electron in or about 1896 by a Dr. Thompson - my vagueness is due to my having to depend on memory. So impressed was it, that it took it as the paradigm of what knowledge should be, and must be. In philosophy, we speak of this as being the epistemological doctrine of positivism. My knowledge must refer to the external world, and it must be quantifiable i.e. in terms that are measurable. Thus was born the school of behaviorism, to which virtually all psychologists belong, and which virtually all psychologists are trained; notwithstanding that, except in psychology departments, positivism as a doctrine of sole true knowledge is a dead duck; and, applied to the mind, it is simply wrong. That psychology has nothing to do with real mental and emotional problems was recognized until comparatively recently, with the field being left in the tender care of psychiatrists. I would reckon that a lot of our present troubles are coming from the field being flooded by psychologists emerging from their laboratories, and venturing into fields and areas where their knowledge has no relevance. It is so easy to find that sexual child abuse is the cause of it all, and to scapegoat paedophiles. And these are the better-trained psychs. So many of them seem to have received not so much an education as an ideological conditioning. So many of them seem to be no more than social workers.

This ignorance could account for the stereotype paedophile and his behaviour assuming the proportions of a heroic urban myth. He is oversexed and his performance is, well, heroic. His appetite is insatiable. He has a huge penis as hard as a rod of steel; which he thrusts up the anuses of screaming and struggling little boys. He is, in other words, a sex crazed brute; and he is concerned naught else than the satisfaction of that insatiable lust. There is an uncanny resemblance between this story and those that went about, in the war years, about the sexual powers of black sailors. Who ''took advantage" of helpless white women; to the extent that, on one unfortunate occasion - so the story went - the penis had to be surgically removed from the woman, so enormous, and so hard, was it. One can imagine that the believers and spreaders of these tales have, themselves, very moderate sexual capabilities. Sadly the psychs believe them, and seek to treat the paeds by chemical castration. Penis envy?

Besides the Report of the Royal Commission itself, I have used newspaper reports and pamphlets put out by the NSW Government Child Protection Council as raw materials for my comments. An example from the latter body is on my desk (ISBN: 0730540634). It emphasizes that the operative part of the injury done to the child is the guilt induced within him as a consequence of the act. This was the thrust of the Report on this subject. This was also the thrust of stories in The Daily Telegraph of 24/7/98 and 25/7/98.

The story begins (24/7/98): "The widow of rugby league player Peter Jackson has spoken of the shame and guilt he felt at being a victim of sexual abuse".

Jackson died of a drug overdose last November aged 33. He was found with syringes and a packet of white powder in an Engadine motel room.

"Mrs. Jackson is pursuing a compensation claim against the school following videotaped admissions the former master made to her lawyers.

"Last night she told Channel 9's A Current Affair, Jackson told her about the abuse in 1992.

"It was very hard for Peter to tell me because of the shame and guilt that victims of paedophilia feel, the misplaced shame and guilt, - she said".

I will pause to make two comments. First, the wife is making a compensation claim, so money is involved, a substantial sum of money. She is therefore not an unbiased and disinterested commentator. Secondly, she spoke in general terms about "victims of paedophilia". On what grounds is she setting herself up as an authority and expert on victims of paedophilia? I suspect from reading the stuff from the aforementioned government publication.

To continue the story:

"Peter's depression started about three years ago and we talked about the depression openly and we talked about what it was caused by and we felt very strongly that it wouldn't happen to our children.

"We let them know about paedophiles and we told them you say no and you tell someone and we were very open about it.

"The Wood royal commission stirred up a lot of memories for Peter and things started to come to a head about that time. She said the consequences of the abuse chewed away at Jackson.

"I don't know if he suicided, I don't know if he intended to die, she said, it was an accidental drug overdose but his drug abuse was due to the abuse. I'm sure about it."

The last paragraph is a pointer to her being in denial about something. It is commonly said that drug addicts and alcoholics are wont never to take responsibility for their problems, and to always blame somebody or something else. Alcoholic's Anonymous is about persuading the alcoholic to assume self-responsibility for his condition. Psychs and the legal system seem to be about the opposite.

I have just discovered that there was a still earlier story on the subject, on the 23/7/98. The Telegraph certainly made a meal of it. The headlines were "Peter Jackson's secret torment" and "Tragic secret that haunted Peter Jackson". The story was saturated with guilt. The final story, on 25/7/98, is titled "inner demons", and is more of the same. The guilt- ridden teacher has apparently made a long confession, and is - wait for it - "an aging Christian Brother."

"Instead of nurturing Jackson through his schoolboy years, he had in reality scarred the football star's soul". So, although the school was an Anglican school, it is still the old Catholic sexual guilt thing.

And what terrible things happened? "The abuse, he (the teacher) said started out in the form of friendly massages and developed into touching and masturbation". And this was when the youth was 16: Maybe I'm wrong about the date of this Telegraph; perhaps it should be 25/7/1898. The Catholic Church's attitude on the matter is clear. Christ's death atones only for the sexual sin of our first parents Adam and Eve. Anybody baptized in the Church is absolved from the consequences of this Original Sin. Sex within marriage is allowed, but only sex within marriage and for the purposes of procreation. Other sex can be, after confession, penance, and attendance at Mass is absolved by the priest. But homosexuality can never be forgiven. Homosexuality implies the worship of other gods, Satan and his demons, and is an abomination before the Lord. Effectively, a homosexual's soul is dead. This is the stuff, which, I suggest, is driving the journalists of the Tele.

But the story contains an interesting revelation. "The teacher claimed he became a father figure to Jackson, whom he alleged had an unhappy home life.

"The hold he exerted over Jackson was such that they kept in contact for several years after the abuse, even attending school football functions.

"But things changed when Jackson got married in 1989.

"The teacher tried to make contact but was rebuffed by Jackson's wife, Siobhan.

"The teacher said Siobhan told him she knew something about my history and she asked me never to approach him again".

One is free to speculate that the teacher was Jackson's true love; but, propelled by the "macho State of Origin hero" image, he decided to do the marriage bit and "turn normal". But the wife was possessive and drove away the still lingering competition. He obediently did go away, and Jackson felt this (however irrationally) to be desertion. "The resultant hatred of the teacher gave rise to a desire for revenge and:

"Just weeks before his death the macho State of Origin hero sat down and wrote what must have been the most difficult letter of his life, a deeply personal account of the abuse.

"In the four page statement given to his solicitor, Jackson revealed the true extent of the psychological trauma triggered by his molestation.

"He poured out his innermost secrets and explained how the repeated abuse had tainted his relationships and ruined his enjoyment of life."

I suggest that this letter and his suicide were the last acts of a weak and twisted man out to have vengeance on the guilt-ridden teacher, who had been stupid enough to give him love. I suggest that Jackson didn't deserve the love even of his dog. The Herald apparently didn't run the story. It was a Telegraph thing, and the Tele is, through its owner Rupert Murdoch, especially interested in Rugby League. It doesn't hurt the game to drum up personalities, even if they are dead.

Today, I had another contact with the Ginger Meggs Gang. It was very friendly, in fact, so much so that I became a little fearful. It is one thing to have fantasies. It is quite another for them to threaten to become real. All went well until I pulled it up sharp when it suggested that it come to my house and be made to take its clothes off. I stressed that sex must involve mutual consent, and nobody in my house was going to be made to do anything. It's the old game of enjoying the sex but playing the victim, and so avoiding all responsibility to both God and Man. The Gang became hostile; and after telling me how much it hated me, it ran off. It is the Catholic hope that by putting the responsibility - the total responsibility - upon somebody else's shoulders, one can escape with one's own soul remaining pure and undefiled. The Gang has a Catholic component. It seems to be the hope of our society that the paedophile community should take all of its sexual guilt upon its shoulders and pay the total penalty.

Would it be too much to ask the Catholic Church to try fighting guilt by taking a positive attitude to sex and life? I suppose it would, but Christian theology allows the possibility. Christ paid the penalty for all pleasure; and upon us fall not just the liberty but the duty to live an enjoyable, positive and full life. To do otherwise would be an insult to Christ, and a rejection of the Cross. I pray that the present nightmare should pass away.

I have to hand the distasteful little booklet entitled Child Sexual Assault - Information for Men were sexually assaulted as children: ISBN 1876109106. The Women's Health & Sexual Assault Education Unit put it out, and it was written by a Eithne O'Donovan. It was, in other words, written by a woman, and written by a woman whose name strongly suggests Irish Catholicism. She neglects to inform us of academic qualifications - if any. The best way to describe it is to call it a rant; all the usual stuff. Child sexual abuse is seen as responsible from everything from suicidal tendencies to bad breath. The last page is devoted to a list of treatment centers urgently seeking patients. The only people worse than these are real estate agents.

In the Good Weekend of 22nd August 1998 was published a story by Richard Guillian entitled "City of Secrets". It was a good story and had about it a ring of truth - even if the temptation to use words like "molesters" was not resisted. It was about Frank Arkell and the world in which he had lived. It, more or less, confirmed my surmises about the man, outlined at the beginning of this work. But, it was a surprise to me to learn how deeply hidden in his closet he had been. To the world, right up to the end, he had remained an uncompromising straight. He had voted against the decriminalization act of 1984. And so, hypocritically, was an enemy of homosexuals. I could hate him, because of his hypocrisy. But perhaps the story was right when it pointed out, given the extremely oppressive environment in which he live and worked, he could not have functioned in a any other way The sexual world of the late Frank Arkell is not pleasant. But if the recommendations of the Wood royal commission are carried into effect, and there is every indication that they will be, it is going to be a whole lot worse. When will it ever be learnt that the fruits of oppression are always bad?

The leadership of the gay and lesbian community worries me. Perhaps there is a lesson to be learnt from history. Six million Jews were slaughtered in Nazi Germany. So how did it happen, given that the Jews made up such a sizable minority, and given they were so wealthy and so closely networked? What was the leadership doing? My guess is that it was doing what the present gay and lesbian leadership is doing; making money. And that it was so intent on this pursuit, and basically so selfish, that it could not see, and did not want to see, the big picture. There is a lesson in this.