UPDATE: Paedophiles Portrayed As ‘Victims’ by Victoria University

Victoria University appears to be rebranding paedophiles as ‘victims’ of stigma whose only guilt is having a sexual ‘preference’ or ‘orientation’.

Just over a month ago, the Royal Commission’s final report, Whanaketia – through pain and trauma, from darkness to light, was presented to Parliament and published on the Royal Commission’s website. It was a disturbing read as we learnt about the extent of sexual abuse – especially of minors – in both state care and religious institutions.

It is therefore especially galling and sickening that coming so soon after this, one of NZ’s major universities – Victoria University in Wellington – appeared to be rebranding paedophiles as ‘victims’ of stigma whose only guilt was having a sexual ‘preference’ or ‘orientation’.

Now just to note some definitions. According to PsychologyToday.com

Hebephilia is a sexual preference for children in early adolescence, between ages 11 and 14. The concept is distinct from paedophilia, which is marked by a sexual preference for prepubescent children, rather than those who have finished puberty and entered adolescence. Ephebophilia refers to an attraction for older adolescents around 15 to 18 years old.

According to Wikipedia – not exactly the source of moral conservatism – it says:

Pedophilia (alternatively spelled paedophilia) is a psychiatric disorder in which an adult or older adolescent experiences a primary or exclusive sexual attraction to prepubescent children… People with the disorder are often referred to as pedophiles (or paedophiles).

But it’s still sexual abuse of children. That’s all you need to know.

We were alerted to the poster (below) that has appeared around Victoria University Wellington - seeking people to enroll in a study to "𝒅𝒊𝒔𝒄𝒖𝒔𝒔 𝒔𝒕𝒊𝒈𝒎𝒂 𝒂𝒏𝒅 𝒂𝒕𝒕𝒊𝒕𝒖𝒅𝒆𝒔 𝒕𝒐𝒘𝒂𝒓𝒅𝒔 𝒑𝒆𝒐𝒑𝒍𝒆 𝒘𝒊𝒕𝒉 𝒂 𝒔𝒆𝒙𝒖𝒂𝒍 𝒂𝒕𝒕𝒓𝒂𝒄𝒕𝒊𝒐𝒏 𝒕𝒐 𝒄𝒉𝒊𝒍𝒅𝒓𝒆𝒏".

This is called 𝐩𝐚𝐞𝐝𝐨𝐩𝐡𝐢𝐥𝐢𝐚, by the way. But you won’t find that word on the poster.

We wanted to check more behind the motives of this Vic University 'study'.

This is what we found....

“Testing the effects of Educational Modules for Reducing Stigma Towards People with a Sexual Attraction to Children”

Yep – the word “paedophile” is nowhere to be seen.

The website home page says -

"𝐖𝐞 𝐚𝐫𝐞 𝐠𝐨𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐭𝐨 𝐞𝐱𝐩𝐥𝐨𝐫𝐞 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐞𝐟𝐟𝐞𝐜𝐭 𝐨𝐟 𝐩𝐚𝐫𝐭𝐢𝐜𝐢𝐩𝐚𝐧𝐭'𝐬 𝐩𝐞𝐫𝐬𝐨𝐧𝐚𝐥 𝐞𝐱𝐩𝐨𝐬𝐮𝐫𝐞 𝐭𝐨 𝐩𝐞𝐨𝐩𝐥𝐞 𝐰𝐢𝐭𝐡 𝐚 𝐬𝐞𝐱𝐮𝐚𝐥 𝐚𝐭𝐭𝐫𝐚𝐜𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐢𝐫 𝐤𝐧𝐨𝐰𝐥𝐞𝐝𝐠𝐞 𝐬𝐨𝐮𝐫𝐜𝐞𝐬 𝐨𝐧 𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐢𝐫 𝐚𝐭𝐭𝐢𝐭𝐮𝐝𝐞𝐬 𝐭𝐨𝐰𝐚𝐫𝐝𝐬 𝐩𝐞𝐨𝐩𝐥𝐞 𝐰𝐢𝐭𝐡 𝐚 𝐬𝐞𝐱𝐮𝐚𝐥 𝐚𝐭𝐭𝐫𝐚𝐜𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐭𝐨 𝐜𝐡𝐢𝐥𝐝𝐫𝐞𝐧."

More disturbingly, the overall description of the study says this:

"𝑇ℎ𝑖𝑠 𝑠𝑡𝑢𝑑𝑦 𝑎𝑖𝑚𝑠 𝑡𝑜 𝑒𝑥𝑝𝑙𝑜𝑟𝑒 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝑒𝑓𝑓𝑒𝑐𝑡 𝑜𝑓 𝑒𝑑𝑢𝑐𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛𝑎𝑙 𝑚𝑜𝑑𝑢𝑙𝑒𝑠 𝑜𝑛 𝐬𝐭𝐢𝐠𝐦𝐚 𝐭𝐨𝐰𝐚𝐫𝐝𝐬 𝐩𝐞𝐨𝐩𝐥𝐞 𝐰𝐢𝐭𝐡 𝐚 𝐬𝐞𝐱𝐮𝐚𝐥 𝐚𝐭𝐭𝐫𝐚𝐜𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐭𝐨 𝐜𝐡𝐢𝐥𝐝𝐫𝐞𝐧. 𝐸𝑑𝑢𝑐𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛𝑎𝑙 𝑚𝑜𝑑𝑢𝑙𝑒𝑠 𝑡ℎ𝑎𝑡 𝑑𝑖𝑠𝑐𝑢𝑠𝑠 𝐦𝐲𝐭𝐡𝐬 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐬𝐭𝐞𝐫𝐞𝐨𝐭𝐲𝐩𝐞𝐬 𝐚𝐫𝐨𝐮𝐧𝐝 𝐭𝐡𝐢𝐬 𝐚𝐭𝐭𝐫𝐚𝐜𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐭𝐡𝐨𝐬𝐞 𝐰𝐡𝐨 "𝐞𝐱𝐩𝐞𝐫𝐢𝐞𝐧𝐜𝐞" 𝐢𝐭 ℎ𝑎𝑣𝑒 𝑏𝑒𝑒𝑛 𝑑𝑒𝑠𝑖𝑔𝑛𝑒𝑑 𝑏𝑎𝑠𝑒𝑑 𝑜𝑛 𝑙𝑖𝑣𝑒𝑑 𝑒𝑥𝑝𝑒𝑟𝑖𝑒𝑛𝑐𝑒 𝑑𝑎𝑡𝑎 𝑎𝑛𝑑 𝑒𝑚𝑝𝑖𝑟𝑖𝑐𝑎𝑙 𝑙𝑖𝑡𝑒𝑟𝑎𝑡𝑢𝑟𝑒, 𝑎𝑛𝑑 𝑎𝑙𝑠𝑜 𝑟𝑒𝑣𝑖𝑒𝑤𝑒𝑑 𝑏𝑦 𝑎𝑛 𝑜𝑛𝑙𝑖𝑛𝑒 𝑔𝑟𝑜𝑢𝑝 𝑓𝑜𝑟 𝐧𝐨𝐧-𝐨𝐟𝐟𝐞𝐧𝐝𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐩𝐚𝐞𝐝𝐨𝐩𝐡𝐢𝐥𝐞𝐬. 𝑃𝑎𝑟𝑡𝑖𝑐𝑖𝑝𝑎𝑛𝑡𝑠' 𝑘𝑛𝑜𝑤𝑙𝑒𝑑𝑔𝑒 𝑎𝑛𝑑 𝑎𝑡𝑡𝑖𝑡𝑢𝑑𝑒𝑠 𝑡𝑜𝑤𝑎𝑟𝑑𝑠 𝑝𝑒𝑜𝑝𝑙𝑒 𝑤𝑖𝑡ℎ 𝑎 𝑠𝑒𝑥𝑢𝑎𝑙 𝑎𝑡𝑡𝑟𝑎𝑐𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛 𝑡𝑜 𝑐ℎ𝑖𝑙𝑑𝑟𝑒𝑛 𝑤𝑖𝑙𝑙 𝑏𝑒 𝑎𝑠𝑠𝑒𝑠𝑠𝑒𝑑 … 𝑟𝑒𝑐𝑒𝑖𝑣𝑖𝑛𝑔 𝑓𝑜𝑢𝑟 𝐞𝐝𝐮𝐜𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧𝐚𝐥 𝐦𝐨𝐝𝐮𝐥𝐞𝐬 )aka (indoctrination") 𝑡𝑜 𝑐𝑜𝑚𝑝𝑙𝑒𝑡𝑒 𝑜𝑣𝑒𝑟 𝑎 10-𝑑𝑎𝑦 𝑝𝑒𝑟𝑖𝑜𝑑...

𝐑𝐞𝐝𝐮𝐜𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐬𝐭𝐢𝐠𝐦𝐚 𝐭𝐨𝐰𝐚𝐫𝐝𝐬 𝐩𝐞𝐨𝐩𝐥𝐞 𝐰𝐢𝐭𝐡 𝐚 𝐬𝐞𝐱𝐮𝐚𝐥 𝐚𝐭𝐭𝐫𝐚𝐜𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐭𝐨 𝐜𝐡𝐢𝐥𝐝𝐫𝐞𝐧 𝐢𝐬 𝐢𝐦𝐩𝐨𝐫𝐭𝐚𝐧𝐭 𝐟𝐨𝐫 𝐦𝐢𝐭𝐢𝐠𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐧𝐞𝐠𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐯𝐞 𝐜𝐨𝐧𝐬𝐞𝐪𝐮𝐞𝐧𝐜𝐞𝐬 𝐨𝐟 𝐬𝐭𝐢𝐠𝐦𝐚 (𝑑𝑎𝑚𝑎𝑔𝑖𝑛𝑔 𝑚𝑒𝑛𝑡𝑎𝑙 ℎ𝑒𝑎𝑙𝑡ℎ, 𝑟𝑒𝑑𝑢𝑐𝑖𝑛𝑔 ℎ𝑒𝑙𝑝-𝑠𝑒𝑒𝑘𝑖𝑛𝑔 𝑏𝑒ℎ𝑎𝑣𝑖𝑜𝑢𝑟𝑠) 𝑎𝑛𝑑 𝐢𝐝𝐞𝐚𝐥𝐥𝐲 𝑟𝑒𝑑𝑢𝑐𝑖𝑛𝑔 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝑟𝑖𝑠𝑘 𝑜𝑓 𝑠𝑒𝑥𝑢𝑎𝑙 𝑜𝑓𝑓𝑒𝑛𝑑𝑖𝑛𝑔 𝑓𝑟𝑜𝑚 𝑡ℎ𝑖𝑠 𝑔𝑟𝑜𝑢𝑝 (𝑡ℎ𝑟𝑜𝑢𝑔ℎ 𝑒𝑛ℎ𝑎𝑛𝑐𝑒𝑑 𝑤𝑒𝑙𝑙𝑏𝑒𝑖𝑛𝑔 𝑎𝑛𝑑 ℎ𝑒𝑙𝑝-𝑠𝑒𝑒𝑘𝑖𝑛𝑔)."

They also include the following modules:

𝑀𝑜𝑑𝑢𝑙𝑒 3 - 𝐴𝑏𝑜𝑢𝑡 𝑆𝑡𝑖𝑔𝑚𝑎 𝑎𝑛𝑑 𝑆𝑢𝑝𝑝𝑜𝑟𝑡 (ℎ𝑜𝑤 𝑑𝑜𝑒𝑠 𝑠𝑡𝑖𝑔𝑚𝑎 𝑎𝑓𝑓𝑒𝑐𝑡 𝑝𝑒𝑜𝑝𝑙𝑒 𝑤𝑖𝑡ℎ 𝑎 𝑠𝑒𝑥𝑢𝑎𝑙 𝑎𝑡𝑡𝑟𝑎𝑐𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛 𝑡𝑜 𝑐ℎ𝑖𝑙𝑑𝑟𝑒𝑛 𝑎𝑛𝑑 𝑤ℎ𝑎𝑡 𝑠𝑢𝑝𝑝𝑜𝑟𝑡 𝑖𝑠 𝑎𝑣𝑎𝑖𝑙𝑎𝑏𝑙𝑒 𝑓𝑜𝑟 𝑡ℎ𝑒𝑚);

Not the children – the offenders!

𝑀𝑜𝑑𝑢𝑙𝑒 4 - 𝑊ℎ𝑒𝑟𝑒 𝐷𝑜 𝑊𝑒 𝐺𝑜 𝐹𝑟𝑜𝑚 𝐻𝑒𝑟𝑒? (ℎ𝑜𝑤 𝑡𝑜 ℎ𝑎𝑣𝑒 𝑐𝑜𝑛𝑣𝑒𝑟𝑠𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛𝑠 𝑎𝑏𝑜𝑢𝑡 𝑠𝑒𝑥𝑢𝑎𝑙 𝑎𝑡𝑡𝑟𝑎𝑐𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛 𝑡𝑜 𝑐ℎ𝑖𝑙𝑑𝑟𝑒𝑛 𝑎𝑛𝑑 𝑡ℎ𝑜𝑠𝑒 𝑤ℎ𝑜 𝑒𝑥𝑝𝑒𝑟𝑖𝑒𝑛𝑐𝑒 𝑖𝑡, 𝑡𝑜 𝑎𝑑𝑑𝑟𝑒𝑠𝑠 𝑎𝑛𝑑 𝑟𝑒𝑑𝑢𝑐𝑒 𝑚𝑦𝑡ℎ𝑠 𝑎𝑛𝑑 𝑠𝑡𝑒𝑟𝑒𝑜𝑡𝑦𝑝𝑒𝑠).

Now it’s not the first time in a NZ university.

As The Centrist reported last week;

[A] 2018 Massey University study stated that: “Participants expressed a need for greater support options for minor-attracted persons and approaches to support that are not founded on stereotypical understandings of minor-attraction. This would recognise that minor-attracted persons who have not offended are not simply “potential offenders” but are human beings who can be prosocial and wish to be accepted in society.”  

Now I actually enrolled to participate in the Victoria University study. So just to reassure you, I’ve fully seen the survey.

It starts okay because in the first part, it asks your opinion on various issues – but not once do they use the word “paedophile”. It’s always “sexual attraction to children”. But I’m going to use the word “paedophilia”. I’m not buying their manipulation.

So it’s agree or disagree with paedophilia being a chosen “orientation” (note the use of the word “orientation”);

….can they do something about it;  

Are they dangerous to children? Is it connected to sexual abuse of children?

Would prevention programmes help prevent paedophiles acting on their sexual attraction to children?  (um- of course!!!)

But then it starts to go slightly weirder

“People are not responsible for their sexual preferences, but they are responsible for their behaviour.”

Note how they talk about “sexual preferences” – an attempt to normalise the sexual desire to sexually abuse children.

Here’s an interesting question. Should families and communities be warned if a paedophile moves into the area? Ironically, they don’t mention whether the person has committed child sexual abuse, is having treatment – so its difficult to answer

So you give all your opinions on these questions. Submit the form.

And then another email arrives. And this is where the distrurbing indoctrination starts.

They argue that they don’t want to normalise “sexual attraction to children” and only want to educate people about “the attraction”

And then they finally use the dreaded word – finally – but only as an “AKA” (also known as paedophilia). And it’s really just to nail down the definitions of age differences of sexual abuse victims.

Society tends to just rightly label it all “paedophilia”. We know what it means. The effort to give separate titles suggests there’s some type of difference in child sexual abuse.

Let’s be clear. There’s not.

But here’s where the indoctrination starts – and it’s actually quite shocking:

People with a sexual attraction to children – paedophiles – are no different to other sexual orientations.

“Having a sexual attraction to children is not something that is chosen or controlled…

People often believe that having a sexual attraction to children means that someone will eventually sexually abuse a child, [yes – we’re not going to take that risk if you have that disorder] or that they already have. Although having this attraction may increase someone’s risk of sexually abusing a child, this belief is inaccurate. [Even if there’s a remote risk of child sexual abuse that isn’t being directly addressed, I will always act to protect children first.]

Having a sexual attraction to children doesn’t mean anything other than just that – they have a sexual attraction to children. [Nothing to see here – apparently!]

Then finally there’s a quiz to see whether you’ve been indoctrinated adequately.

Paedophilia v hebophilia

But note the emphasis on “attraction”. Just an attraction. There’s even just “emotional attraction”. How nice.

And then the meaning of an “exclusive” attraction to children. Yes apparently that is different to an attraction to children.

But it’s just an attraction, team.

Now I didn’t answer all the questions because I’d had a gutsful by now – but just in case you didn’t know, here’s the answers, according the good people at Victoria University.

Yes – definitions are important – because we don’t want you using the term “paedophile” all the time.

And “exclusive” sexual attraction to children is really really important – apparently. 

Yes – paedophiles want nothing to do with sex with adults, prostitutes, pole dancers, porn sites…

They can just switch that off - apparently!

And lastly – apparently – you can’t become a paedophile in middle-age – bet you never knew that!

And you definitely don’t “choose” to have a sexual attraction to children.

But you can “experience” the sexual attraction to children your “whole life”.

Yes – even during those RSE courses run by InsideOUT when you’re just 7 years old. If you’re 11 years old and really like that classmate on the other side of the room, Victoria University acknowledges that you’re just showing normal paedophilic tendencies – or is that hebephilic tendencies? 

You won’t believe who else has previously spoken out on this issue. Well – perhaps you will.

Shaneel Lal who orchestrated with the help of the media the violence and mayhem at Albert Park against Posie Parker while breathlessly telling media that he was scared and actually the victim –

and also apparently received death threats after the conversion therapy law was passed although the media never asked to actually see the death threats and Shaneel couldn’t actually produce evidence of the death threats but the media somehow knew there was definitely death threats – journalism at its finest in the NZ Herald…

… he tweeted back in 2020 on this issue – it was about voting rights for people in prison which as paedophiles, and others - and said

“Here’s an opportunity to spread awareness about paedophilia. [Yes – he used the P word!!] There are a lot of generalisations and negative stereotypes about paedophiles but there is very little spread factual information about it. In NZ, there is very little prehabilitation help available to paedophiles which means we are just waiting for people to offend before we help them.”

And then

“Paedophilia is a diagnosable mental health problem [A bit like gender dysphoria eh Shaneel] Not all paedophilies sexually offend prepubescent children and not all rapists are paedophiles. [Um… they are if they rape a child. End of.] You are not considered a criminal if you are a paedophile but do not act on your temptations. [You wouldn’t rightly be in prison then, Shaneel. What’s your point?] You’re right, you don’t think.”

But you can see the narrative, can’t you.

If you vote against same sex marriage, you’re the worst person on the planet.

If you defend paedophiles, you’re the enlightened person who’s finally thinking. 

According to the gospel of Shaneel – who by the way now works as a senior assistant for a Labour Party MP.

Victoria University is guilty of reducing and even minimising the horrific harm and damage to the child, and giving elevated and a dangerous status of “victimhood” to the paedophile.

By the way, the mainstream media in NZ ignored this whole story – until The Post in Wellington could no longer because it was on their back doorstep. But they seem to be the only legacy media outlet to have covered it – which tells you everything about our media and stories they want to hide.

So this was The Post’s story

Vic Uni paedophilia study sparks controversy

A Victoria University study aiming to understand societal views on paedophilia to reduce sexual harm on children has sparked controversy online, with a lobby group arguing it helps normalise sexual attraction to children.

Conservative Christian lobby group Family First’s comments online were in response to posters put up around Te Herenga Waka – Victoria University’s Wellington campus, calling for participants to take part in two surveys and four educational modules.

The study was part of research intended to contribute to reducing sexual harm of children, university deputy Vice-Chancellor Professor Margaret Hyland said. It aimed to understand societal views on paedophilia and was approved by its ethic processes, she said. “The university stands behind it and the researchers involved.” Hyland acknowledged paedophilia was a sensitive and emotive subject which was why the researchers chose to be transparent about the topic on the poster.

Bollocks! Show me the word “paedophile” on the poster.

And note the email contact address – “stigma-project”. Oh yes – that damn stigma!

here’s the link from the QR Code on the poster

You will not find the word “paedophile” anywhere.

Family First chief executive Bob McCoskrie said the university was “trying to de-stigmatise paedophilia” and highlighted “an effort to normalise sexual attraction to children”. “As you can imagine, this is a recipe for disaster,” McCoskrie wrote. He declined to be interviewed and did not respond to a list of questions sent by The Post.

Fake news. They asked me for comment. I sent them my substack commentary because it had everything I wanted to say on the topic.

His post concluded that “stigma is there for a good reason” and was “there to try and protect the victim”.

And then they found another academic who would support this research – and its not hard to do that in wild New Zealand.

However, Dr Gwenda Willis, associate professor at Auckland University and registered clinical psychologist disagreed. It concerned her that there was “so much stigma around holding this unchosen attraction” because it could stop people seeking help which was crucial to harm prevention… “The instant we start stigmatising people for holding certain thoughts or attractions, we’re limiting their ability to put up their hand and seek help and potentially ostracising them.”

And then just to prove how wrong they were about help not being available for people who genuinely wanted help for their paedophilia, there’s a list of places at the end of the article where they can get help. There’s a similar list on the Victoria University site as well.

·         WellStop 

·         Safe Network 

·         Stop in Christchurch

·         Safe to Talk 

So they can “put up their hand and seek help”.

Just before I go, I know you’re asking – who is Dr Gwenda Willis. Why is she the expert? I didn’t have to look far.

She recently had an article in the APA PsycNet journal of the American Psychological Association entitled Understanding and influencing public attitudes surrounding people with a sexual interest in children.

Stigmatization and societal punitiveness surrounding people living with these interests can impact their well-being, obstruct help-seeking, and potentially increase risk of offending behavior. Previous research employing stigma intervention strategies have shown promising results in reducing stigmatizing attitudes toward this population, particularly regarding presentations of lived-experience narratives… The present study sought to examine the effectiveness of humanizing narrative (lived experience of an individual with sexual interest in children) and informative (fact-based information about pedophilia) antistigma interventions on members of the general public. 

So add Auckland University to the list. So many red flags in that narrative.

Now it’s got significant limitations in the study including that it’s disproportionately the views of Pakeha females with high levels of education, a 31% drop-out rate (didn’t complete the survey), and there was no follow-up study to determine whether the change in views was just short term due to the ‘indoctrination’.

But here’s a key line in the summary…

The informative intervention was associated with greater reductions in perceptions of dangerousness and increased understanding that sexual interest in children is not a choice.

“Perceptions of dangerousness” and “deviance”.  There is an academic attempt to label concerns about paedophiles working with children, living in your area, being amongst families and their children, as irrational and unfair – and that they have a condition that is not their choice and none of them will act on it.

Sadly we know this to be false.  

Let me conclude with someone with intelligence.

Anna Salter, a US psychologist, author, and internationally recognized expert who has done over 500 evaluations of high-risk sex offenders said:

While paedophiles do not choose their attractions, she does not believe those who offend are being punished unfairly. Treatment should be encouraged, but without minimizing the impact abuse has on victims' lives. "It's a choice to act on child molestation. We don’t need to say, 'Offending isn’t so bad. It really isn’t your fault. ... You really couldn’t control it. You are a victim of a punitive society.' We need to say, 'Offending is devastating. It damages the lives of victims. It has damaged your life. You can learn to control yourself. You have the capacity to do better.'

Couldn’t agree more.

The stigma is there for a good reason.

It’s a very healthy stigma which hopefully redirects the offender.

But more importantly, the stigma is there to try and protect the victim. The child.

That’s where our focus should be.

(MORE TO COME…..]