The biggest slap in my five months of house arrest came not at the start when the magistrate said he wanted to make it “as much like jail” as he could. It came only days from the end, at the hands of an elderly hospital volunteer, on one of my rare excursions into the real world.

Mate, I'm telling you, it's no holiday. Pic: Fiona Hamilton


As I walked into the foyer of the Austin Hospital for a check-up to see how my newly transplanted liver was behaving, the beaming, bespectacled old-timer asked how I was doing.

I said: “I feel great. Only 12 more days and I’m out of jail.” His mocking, condescending reply: “You weren’t in jail.” I felt like saying: “You try it, sunshine.”

How bad could it be merely being locked up for a few months in your own apartment? If you feel that way I suggest you try if for a week. Let alone 153 days. Which is more than 3500 hours. Nearly 250,000 minutes. More than 13 million seconds.

But who’s counting? As everybody who was not locked up told me: “Don’t worry, it will go quickly.” It didn’t. The waking hours in each day did, the months did not. They dragged. The only time I felt encouraged was when they put a countdown clock on my website and I could see the last weeks ticking away.

But the cumbersome electronic ankle bracelet was a constant bedtime reminder when it bit into a scrawny ankle. And if you still think it was a holiday at home, just consider not being able to earn a living for almost half a year. Not being able to go to the supermarket or step on the street without permission for a medical appointment. Not being allowed to use the internet, send emails, use Twitter or Facebook. I wasn’t even allowed to advertise my Human Headlines book on 3AW in the lead-up to Father’s Day - even though it had been written and printed long before my sentencing.

The magistrate, Charles Rozencwajg, cleverly ordered restrictions that turned me into a non-person. On my brief, sanctioned, morning walks around the apartment block courtyard I felt like Rudolf Hess, the last man in Spandau Prison.There were many other reminders: like a surprise visit from Department of Corrections staff at 9.15 one night for an unscheduled breath test. Unless your name was George Best I’d be surprised if anybody would blow over 0.00 within weeks of having a liver transplant.

I didn’t. Don’t get me wrong when I point out these restrictions. It was meant to be like jail. I broke the law. I was guilty of breaching court suppression orders concerning two of this country’s worst serial sex offenders against children at a Name Them and Shame Them public rally on the steps of Parliament House. And I had “priors”.

I had been to jail in the 1980s for naming that notorious Melbourne paedophile priest Michael Glennon. The fact that it was a bad law doesn’t carry much weight in the confines of a courtroom. What frustrated me most during my isolation - and that’s why the magistrate made the punishment fit the crime - was being gagged. Especially when things were being said or written about me that were not true.

It started in the courtroom during Mr Rozencwajg’s own judgment. He made me sound like a self-serving hypocrite. He said from the bench: “It was on the basis of your medical condition, that you asked I impose a form of a suspended sentence of imprisonment.”

That wasn’t true. I did not ask. I know exactly what I said because at a previous hearing I actually handed a copy of my pre-sentencing comments to the magistrate and the prosecutors. I was specific. I stressed: “Do the crime, do the time.”

I could not accept a suspended sentence because I have said so many times that a suspended sentence is no sentence at all. All a person with a suspended sentence has to do is behave like every other law-abiding citizen for a certain length of time.

To have that public stance and then ask for a Get Out of Jail Free card for myself would shriek of hypocrisy. Another time I would have liked to speak out was when Herald Sun columnist Steve Price suggested I didn’t deserve a donated organ for liver cancer because of my past drinking.

He conveniently omitted that cancerous tumours, rather than cirrhosis, had given me a death sentence. I guess what niggled me most about the column was the last paragraph. In a sanctimonious line, which he repeated on Channel 10’s 7pm Project, Price said: “Good luck, Derryn, and for God’s sake keep off the grog.”

That, aimed at an atheist who had stopped drinking five years earlier and had never had a .05 conviction. Unlike Price. And had I been allowed on Twitter during the gay marriage debate at the ALP conference, I would have taken aim at another Herald Sun columnist, Andrew Bolt,  and his dire “where will this all lead to?” line of opposing argument. My tweet would have said something like: “Yep, Andrew. They let the blacks ride up the front of the bus and now one’s in the White House.”

One of the ironies of being gagged at this time was watching, mute, as the same Department of Justice that took me to court for breaching suppression orders over paedophiles was itself in court trying to get a notorious child abuser’s suppression order lifted.

So how did a silenced man spend the five months? I had heaps of books to read and DVDs to watch and didn’t read or see hardly any of them. I did watch Killing Time, based on the rise andfall of coke-head lawyer Andrew Fraser. It’s one of the best local series for yonks. David Wenham is brilliant and a free-to-air network should run it next year. I watched a lot of TV news and discovered how much repetitive rubbish comes out of the mouths of the leaders of both parties.

I wrote about 100,000 words of a new book with the tentative sub-title A tale of life, death, hope and house arrest and I reverted to an old habit of cooking Chinese stir fries. I had a daily love-hate relationship with the exercise treadmill. It got me out of the apartment for an hour and, after five months, I’m doing 2km in 20 minutes at 5.5km/h. A big improvement on the day I went to court to be sentenced and sat there with miracle medical man Bob Jones taking my pulse as I struggled to breathe.

I look at the front page pic from the Herald Sun from that time in which I look deader than Mao Tse Tung and think of how lucky I am. So lucky that somebody’s family, in their grief, agreed to let their loved one be an organ donor. And lucky we have men like Jones and his team at the Austin Liver Transplant Unit to give new life to hundreds like me. I also think of people who were not so lucky.

We’re only a couple of days away from Christmas - a Christmas that six months ago I didn’t think I’d be alive to celebrate. I didn’t fear death at all but am glad I am still here to cherish this Christmas and cherish Chanel, who was thrust into private and public roles she never expected.

It sounds trite to say it, but live every day as if it were your last because it could be. I know. I came close. I still have a lot to do in the bonus years I have left. Some causes to fight.

My dear old grandmother, who lived to 96, once told me: “It’s not what happens to you in life that matters. It’s how you handle it.”

Nanna, I hope, as you used to say, I’m doing you proud.

148 comments

Show oldest | newest first

    • Erick says:

      05:14am | 22/12/11

      Freedom of speech is one of the most fundamental human rights. Without it, all the other rights are under threat.

      There are those who say “there is no right to free speech in Australia”. They are wrong. Free speech is a universal right, equally held by every human being everywhere. What we have in Australia are government authorities that selectively violate human rights.

    • kerri says:

      07:19am | 22/12/11

      Yes,
      We should all be allowed to yell fire in the theatre. Because free speech is a universal right.

    • malohi says:

      07:34am | 22/12/11

      unbridled human rights are a myth. You only have ‘right’ as far as society deems that it does not unacceptably interfere with anothers ‘rights.’
      There is no true freedom of anything. People collectively made rules (or that is the principle anyway) and whether you like it or not, those rules say what you cannot do or say lest you be punished. Individual < society.

      Doing and saying whatever you want is not a good thing mate, it is the dream of the infantile and selfish.
      [I think you know this and your comment was some segue to rights against men violation. wink  ]

    • Erick says:

      07:38am | 22/12/11

      @kerri - “We should all be allowed to yell fire in the theatre. Because free speech is a universal right. “

      Ah, the old straw man. Why is it that the advocates of censorship always prattle on about yelling “fire” in the theatre? Has anyone ever actually done that? It’s not exactly a common practice, is it?

      The reason this extremely silly example is always cited is simple: because there are actually very, very few real examples of situations where freedom of speech is a bad thing. So the opponents of liberty had to make one up.

    • yourname says:

      07:45am | 22/12/11

      I find the whole notion of “rights” kind of funny. I have moved around a fair bit in cities, towns, and in nature, and while I have seen planes, trains, automobiles and witchetty grubs, I have never yet seen a “right”. This leads me to believe that is one of those dear little fictions which humans are so fond of inventing. Another is “lest we forget”, when it is utterly clear that we will with certainty forget, eventually, as a society. That is why the phrase exists—a forlorn hope. Who still marches for the horrendous loss of life of the Hundred Years’ War? Others include “till death do us part” and “I will love you forever”. Were these ideas spoken by a court jester, I would, to paraphrase the Bard, be much inclined to laugh at him ... and beat him.

    • stevekag says:

      08:08am | 22/12/11

      Not even sure what you are on about Erick, he broke the law by his own admission. What has that got to do with free speech?

      If the law says the sex offenders cannot be named then no one has the right to break the law, otherwise you get punished.

      I am an adult survivor of serious incest, i am not down playing anything that these monsters did but at the end of the day as much as i personally admire what Derryn has always done he knew full well that he was skirting with the law and almost saying “go on i dare you” and they did.
      I hope the laws are reviewed and they keep the offenders rights as well as the survivors rights in mind but until they do we must follow the law, otherwise you can move over seas.

    • MarkS says:

      08:10am | 22/12/11

      @Erick
      Rights do not exist, every so called right is really somebody else’s obligation. That is the only way so called rights can work, somebody must be ordered not to do something they might otherwise have done & somebody else must be responsible for ensuring it happens. Look at the USA first amendment.

      “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”

      It is an order that Congress will not do something & an obligation on the Supreme Court to overturn the law if they do.

    • Nilbog says:

      08:22am | 22/12/11

      “There are those who say “there is no right to free speech in Australia”. They are wrong.”

      Actually, they are correct.

      And if you think it is a universal right held by everyone (in reality, not idealogically) then you’ve never been to some African countries where to speak out against the government will get you shot.

      Iy is only a universal right if everyone acknowledges it as one, and not everyone on this planet does.

      The rest is just idealogical posturing on your part.

    • Rick of the Dustbowl says:

      08:25am | 22/12/11

      Free speech is a universal right equally held by every human being everywhere? It’s just that some speak louder than others ( those in the media) so how is that equal?

    • kerri says:

      08:28am | 22/12/11

      Ah eric dismisses crying fire in a theatre because it exposes his argument for the weakness inherent in it.
      There is a good reason why you cannot say whatever you want about whatever you like whenever you like and the fire analogy is a good example of this.
      I’m sure you know this, but on this particular occasion you disagree with the courts ruling based on emotion. Your response is to disparage a very good example of why.their are limits.


      “This is from the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Schenck v. U.S.
      (1919), setting limits on the freedom of speech guaranteed by the
      First Amendment to the Constitution.  Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes,
      Junior, wrote:  “The most stringent protection of free speech would
      not protect a man falsely shouting fire in a theater and causing a
      panic.””

    • mick says:

      08:47am | 22/12/11

      Isn’t it wonderful that there are those amongst us who speak out when the majority of people in power will not rock the boat even when bad things are happening right in front of their noses.  It takes a lot of guts and I for one applaud Derryn for doing what is right even though civil libertarians will try to shut the man down.

      If you ever run for office Derryn I’ll vote for you.

    • Erick says:

      09:02am | 22/12/11

      @kerri - No, the fire analogy is a lousy analogy, because it posits a problem that doesn’t actually exist.

      Try coming up with actual examples in the real world, where free speech is harmful in itself. They are rare. That’s why you have to make up silly analogies instead of arguing the facts.

    • Shane* says:

      09:04am | 22/12/11

      A beleive a British woman recently exercised her right to free speech on a tram. And it was grotesque.

      Hinch was wrong to name those men, purely because our entire justice system is based on the ideal that people can be rehabilitated, and that once they’ve served their time, they are done. They have a right to move on having served their time. Whether they reoffend or not is beside the point… It is not up to Derryn Hinch, shock jock, to determine whether or not they have paid their debt to society.

      And Derryn, you spent some time in jail once. Real jail. House arrest isn’t jail and you know it.

    • AdamC says:

      09:18am | 22/12/11

      @Shane*, actually, I understand that the identities of the offenders Hinch named were suppressed due to their being placed under supervision orders. Supervision orders are designed to allow for the ongoing monitoring of convicted offenders who have served their time but are still so dangerous that they cannot simply be released into the community. To put it another way, the offenders who Hinch named quite clearly were not ‘rehabilitated’.

    • Keen Observer says:

      09:40am | 22/12/11

      I went and saw Apollo 13 years ago in the theatre. I wished someone would yell “fire”. Noone did so I just left.

    • kerri says:

      10:02am | 22/12/11

      How about we name all juvenile offenders and victims of rape regardless of the circumstances.
      After all, freedom of speech is universal according to erich we should be able to say anything that “pops” in our heads.

    • Cleo Basset says:

      10:23am | 22/12/11

      Are you up at sparrows fart every morning to get in the first word Erick?? Or do you just have such a busy and vibrant life you hit the ground running and need to get your ‘opinion of the day’ up at the earliest opportunity…..?

    • Bertrand says:

      11:06am | 22/12/11

      @Erick
      What about speech that incites violence? For example, what if a religious cleric in Australia openly called for his followers to bomb civilian targets?

      All rights have limits. I am sure you have heard the phrase, my rights end where yours begin. If your exercising of free speech threatens, for example, my right to safety, then there should be a limit on it.

      That being said, I’m not sure that the limit set in this case is the correct one (in fact, I would argue that, like the laws in some European countries banning speech questioning the holocaust, or our racial vilification laws that ban speech that insults other races, the laws that sent Hinch to home detention incorrectly limited speech).

    • Brian B says:

      11:07am | 22/12/11

      Ah. Kerri old son, if that’s your best argument against free speech, you’ve lost the battle already.

    • Cobbler says:

      11:14am | 22/12/11

      I’d say the right to free speach is about as fundamental as a convicted criminals right to ‘do the time’ and re-integrate into society.

      Something that makes Mr Hinch a hypocrite no matter how hard he tries to avoid it.

    • Criminologist says:

      11:15am | 22/12/11

      @Bertrand

      We already have laws for the examples you cite.

      @Shane

      The woman will apparently do three months jail on remand while awaiting the determination of a race hate related charge.

    • kerri says:

      11:21am | 22/12/11

      Brian B
      “you’ve lost the battle already. “

      I didn’t realise this was a battle. If I had I certainly wouldn’t have gone into battle against such closed mind as yours.

      Only those with poor intellectual processing capabilities would think that there aren’t limits to what can be said in the name of free speech. Go fight your battles in the name of ignorance.

      PS say hello to Peter for me.

    • Wynston Cruso says:

      11:30am | 22/12/11

      kerri - why shouldn’t we be able to? You still haven’t given a valid, real world reason.

    • gobsmack says:

      11:30am | 22/12/11

      @Erick
      “Try coming up with actual examples in the real world, where free speech is harmful in itself.”
      I’ll use one of yours - false accusations of rape.
      And sure you can say that if the accusation is false, the complainant should be prosecuted for defamation but by then the damage to the accused’s reputation is well and truly done.

    • Erick says:

      11:45am | 22/12/11

      @malohi & Bertrand - While it is true that sometimes governments must violate human rights for the sake of the greater good, it nevertheless should be remembered that these are violations.

      A human right is not something that is granted to us by authority; it is a principle intended to protect us from authority. Governments can never give people a right, only attempt to take it away.

    • malohi says:

      12:04pm | 22/12/11

      @ Erick,
      Do not bring your empty words here mate,
      Your presence is required at the new article.
      Godspeed friend.

    • Sean says:

      04:53pm | 22/12/11

      Jesus Christ, what is WRONG with you people? Who the hell argues AGAINST human rights? Tell ya what, you should all go and hang out in North Korea for a while, and when you come back we’ll see how you feel about human rights. IF you come back.

    • Austin 3:16 says:

      05:27pm | 23/12/11

      Right on Sean - victims of crime deserve their right to privacy. No ifs buts or maybes

    • sha says:

      09:48pm | 23/12/11

      Austin indeed.Lets all go to North Korea for a reality check.

    • wearestardust says:

      06:54am | 22/12/11

      I see you’ve slept on our discussions of yesterday, Erick, and now agree with me wink

    • Erick says:

      07:32am | 22/12/11

      Heh. Of course, we still disagree. Occupying territory isn’t a free speech, nor is camping.

    • Frank says:

      07:50am | 22/12/11

      But protesting is Erick…its a fundmental right of democracy in a western society to allow freedom to protest…no matter how they do it or what the cause is as long as they dont harm others (which excludes self-defence) when armed and shielded police officers who have nothing better to do are let loose on unarmed people this is when it goes crazy…sure the public needs the space and they had their moment but its A DEMOCRACY not a DICTATORSHIP where the leader can tell its armed militia to attack unarmed citizens

    • wearestardust says:

      08:33am | 22/12/11

      I wasn’t clear.  I was actually referring to what seems now to be our agreement that arbitrary enforcement of the law is bad.  Having to explain it slightly spoils the joke.  My bad.

    • Erick says:

      08:54am | 22/12/11

      @Frank - “freedom to protest…no matter how they do it”

      Wrong. They have the freedom to make statements in protest, but they do not have the freedom to steal someone else’s property in protest.

      By occupying a public space, they are stealing land from the public. Theft, vandalism and violence are not acceptable forms of protest.

    • old fart says:

      01:15pm | 22/12/11

      the women wearing tents in melbourne were not camping, they were not standing still. Therefore, they must have been caravaning, since when has it been a crime to be in a caravan

    • bill09 says:

      06:54am | 22/12/11

      Pity they didn’t do a brain transplant at the same time….

    • Chris L says:

      02:25pm | 22/12/11

      Don’t bother ticking “yes” on your card. The doctor will see it and say “Pass”.

    • James says:

      04:01pm | 22/12/11

      That is a foul thing to say ... utterley despicable you low class creep.

    • Chris L says:

      06:51pm | 22/12/11

      @James - Him or me?

    • Mahhrat says:

      07:06am | 22/12/11

      Have a great festive season, Derryn.  I don’t have to agree with you to respect that what was done to you was tailored specifically to the person you are.  Considering what people get away with in this life, for you to be treated as you were is just wrong.

    • jorgen flenswing says:

      07:06am | 22/12/11

      only one comment..,,,what would Oscar Wilde think of that????

    • Alf says:

      12:46pm | 22/12/11

      “...there is only one thing in the world worse thatn being talked about, and that is not being talked about.”

    • Em says:

      07:15am | 22/12/11

      Ah, Hinchie… you are a legend. Please keep fighting the good fight. Folks like my dad who suffered abuse at the hands of the state-run Catholic homes need you. My future kids will need you.

      Having been house-bound with illness for a short period of time myself, home comforts become torture when all you want to do is get out.

    • ba'al says:

      07:18am | 22/12/11

      @Erick,
      I agree with what you said. It has also been shown again and again human rights can only be protected with force, however the state has the force enshrined with law. A charter of human rights with just the basic rights (none of this cultural or relative bullshit) then scrap the other bad laws would be a start.
      (reply button did not work)

    • malohi says:

      07:42am | 22/12/11

      Lol @ your Basic rights. Please tell these basic rights? Bad laws?? Can you name one?
      Protip, there is a reason these international charters and human right bills carry no weight in the real courts.
      There are no basic rights, there is a balance between rights and responsibilities, it is called the law. It is an intricate beast far more beautiful, complex and empethatic than your vague rainbow dreams.

    • Frank says:

      08:07am | 22/12/11

      How bout a law that is designed to allow convicted child rapists to be able to remain anonymous to the community even when there is strong evidence that these people use the system of suppression orders to reoffend? the only thing Derryn Hinch was trying to do was highlight the hypocrisy that lawmakers state the law is designed to protect the victims when in practice it allows the attacker the freedom to reoffend,  that law is not only bad it is EVIL and I hope that with Derryn’s help the arcaine Victorian Legal System can be fixed up in regard to these stupid laws and suspended sentences.  Basic rights are to live freely and safely and expect that the law and law enforcement will protect you when you when you need it to, not to be used as a tool to get away with some of the worst crimes that can be committed if you don’t believe that we have basic rights as human beings then you are delusional malohi, what do you think the people in Egypt and Libya fought for?

    • ba'al says:

      08:41am | 22/12/11

      ‘The law’ as you call it is completely arbitary. Bad laws would be control orders, the ability of the afp to detain people without charge, anti vilification laws, some parts of the anti discrimination act, planning laws restricting housing, tax law on second jobs that limit the ability of people to sell their labour freely, just to name a few.
      There are no universal rights or law beyond that which we create and enforce.
      Food, shelter, work, protecting from discrimination based on inherent characteristics and a few others would be a good idea.
      No cultural rights, no relative morality and a balanced police force to maintain  
      order.
      The law, i am talking about improving the law. I believe in rainbows but you sure as hell cannot protect family, country or self with a rainbow. I never mentioned rainbows baloni.

    • malohi says:

      09:24am | 22/12/11

      Your vagueries are showing,
      Laws are not arbitary, the legislation is carefully considered by the people you elect. It is then interpreted by indipendant juduiciary. Just because you may be ignorant to the reasons behind the law does not make it arbitary. None of the laws you mentioned are inherintly bad or unnecessary and i suggest you would be incapable of drafting anything remotely more suitable.

      You speak of ‘relative’ morality, ‘balanced’ police force this is no different from the vague ‘human rights’ argument. What you are really doing is proffering vague terms to hide what is really your subjective view of the world( which you are entitled to) but at the end of the day, there is a system in place where society as a whole (representative govt) decides on laws for all not just you.
      It is the law, it is intricate. If you dont like it try to change it. Your pathos based pleas to human rights, and such other vagueries only show ignorance and misplaced self righteousness, they are specious and illogical. And it pisses me off. (not you, just the illogic)

    • Chris says:

      11:01am | 22/12/11

      @malohi

      Surely “basic human rights” would include the right to not be fucked by pedophiles?

    • malohi says:

      11:27am | 22/12/11

      You can consent to being fu**ed by a ped why not?
      A child cannot, but we have laws for that, I do not know a country which does not.
      Is the right you speak of extend to a right not to be fu**ed by anyone without consent? If so where do we draw the line of consent? who decides the age for valid consent if a child?
      Does this right you alledge extend to a right to know of peds?, rights to know of suspected peds?, rights to know of potential ped?s, right to know of their family?. Right to know of their victim? I mean you may require inside info for how to protect your family right?

      You use an extreme example as an appeal to emotion king hit, but it does nothing to disprove my point, it only emphasises it. You cannot make such grandeous assertions and label them as ‘basic’ rights. The only thing basic is the level of thought given by the mob.

      There are principles of interaction society accepts, rights and responsibilities, these may vary considerably in different circumstances none of this is ‘Basic’ there are thousands of pieces of legislation and millions of judgments dealing with these interactions. It is called the law.

      If you break the law you are punished. Defending yourself or any other criminal under the veil of ‘human rights’ in this country is a cop-out or just shows an infantile understanding of how this society operates.

    • ba'al says:

      01:12pm | 22/12/11

      @malohi,
      your comments said nothing, just mocked people for not understanding the law.
      My point is simple.
      I would like our legal system to protect the basic human dignity of our citizens. It does an alright job, we could do better.
      The end.
      Now you can go off on another pretentious rant without actually making a point.
      Also the law is arbitrary in the sense it is based on a system without many safeguards. In this country you could pass a law making sodomy punishable by death and murder a $50 dollar fine. If you are unable to understand that living in a nation without enshrined safe guards is a worry then you are not a student of history and a poor student of law.

    • ba'al says:

      01:12pm | 22/12/11

      @malohi,
      your comments said nothing, just mocked people for not understanding the law.
      My point is simple.
      I would like our legal system to protect the basic human dignity of our citizens. It does an alright job, we could do better.
      The end.
      Now you can go off on another pretentious rant without actually making a point.
      Also the law is arbitrary in the sense it is based on a system without many safeguards. In this country you could pass a law making sodomy punishable by death and murder a $50 dollar fine. If you are unable to understand that living in a nation without enshrined safe guards is a worry then you are not a student of history and a poor student of law.

    • malohi says:

      01:45pm | 22/12/11

      Oooh a double post, Now it is “basic human dignity”?
      Anyway,
      I think we are on the same wavelegth. Yes the laws could be better.
      But the system we have is protected by the voting populous. The safeguards we have are inherent in responsible government.
      It is way too hamfisted and vague to have foundation in what you call human rights. If they are so self evident they should be reflected in the voting populous, no? ergo the laws reflect the values held by the society at the time.

      You may not like some of them, neither do I, that is ok. But to apportion your self beliefs on everyone and claim they are “basic human rights” is nothing more than your subjective opinion.

      The concept of law is so much more intricate and unlike the human rights feelgooderies, actually makes reference to a persons responsibilites in society.

      That is another point I take umbrage with vis a vis human rights, they are deceptive in that they give the impression a persons rights in society trump their responsibilities to others.

      Our system now is so far advanced of a bill of rights there is no need to dumb the system down, especially for the purpose of giving criminals a rallying point for the uneducated mob.

      There is no ‘basic’ human right to anything. You can do what you want within the law. Society can change the law. If that means telling people they cant speak, or depriving them of liberty, or shooting them dead that is the concessions we make to live in a relatively harmonious society.

    • ba'al says:

      07:19am | 22/12/11

      @Erick,
      I agree with what you said. It has also been shown again and again human rights can only be protected with force, however the state has the force enshrined with law. A charter of human rights with just the basic rights (none of this cultural or relative bullshit) then scrap the other bad laws would be a start.
      (reply button did not work)

    • Angry God of Townsville says:

      07:28am | 22/12/11

      The legal protections offered to convicted paedophiles is an insult to their victims. The victims never received legal protection from these ar%eholes and to me it highlights the hypocrisy that protects the worst after failing to protect the innocent.

      The rights of the community that did not commit these acts should override the right of the gutless criminal that chose to sexually assault a child. I should have the right to know if a convicted paedophile lives near me and my young children and I should be able to identify the bastard if I am out shopping with my children and be able to provide protection for my family.

      To be clear, My rights for my family to be able to identify threats to our safety exceed the right to a criminal to protect his identity after committing such a crime.

      Your stance on this issue should be supported and appreciated by all people in a civilised society.

      To those who say that the criminals have served their time and should be left alone fail to comprehend the real threats that these individuals continue to present and that their rates of repeat offending mean that ordinary people have the right to know of such a significant potential threat.

      My children are the innocent and potential victims of such people and I should have the knowledge to protect them. I am able to teach them how to cross the road safely and I can ensure that I drive safely and within the laws to ensure that I can keep them protected. I can teach them to respect their teachers and police and get them to understand that they are not to go with strangers. How do I know if one of the people in the circles of football teams, soccer teams, band practices and other activities is in fact a significant threat to their safety.

      Why do we protect the right of dangerous criminals whilst failing to protect the truly innocent.

    • Criminologist says:

      07:41am | 22/12/11

      @Angry God

      As mentioned by iansand below, it’s about protecting the identity of the victim, so that they aren’t exposed to further embarrassment, humiliation or other ill effects by having their name exposed to the wider community.

    • malohi says:

      07:50am | 22/12/11

      You do understand that the laws were made to protect the identity of the victim as they are very often a direct relative?
      protecting peds from vigilanties or letting them get on with life were of little to no concern in the drafting of the laws.

    • Matt says:

      09:25am | 22/12/11

      This is one of the strongest cases of Peds Under the Bed I’ve ever seen.  Hopefully one day you can overcome your crippling paranoia, angry god.

    • Kate says:

      09:50am | 22/12/11

      But what if your child was the victim? Would you really want the perpetrator named if it meant that your child’s identity was exposed and for the rest of their life, your kid was ‘that kid who got touched up by the pedo’? Imagine how badly that would impede their recovery?

    • Shelly says:

      10:12am | 22/12/11

      You can protect your children by educating them and talking to them and building relationships with them such that these people will not see them as victims. Bring them up to be strong, confident and forthright. Don’t make them kiss smelly Aunty Liz or slightly creepy Uncle Fred good bye when they clearly don’t want to.

      Talk to them about personal privacy and make then understand the difference between behaviour between adults and kids that is ok and behaviour that is not ok.

    • Beth says:

      08:51pm | 22/12/11

      Watch every sports practice. Be there while they play outside. Have a blanket rule of no sleepovers. Being a helicopter parent is not the same as always being there, in the background, making sure they’re safe from real danger (let them scrape their knees of course). Our children are ultimately our responsibility

    • iansand says:

      07:30am | 22/12/11

      As much as you may dislike suppression orders thewy are not there for the protection of the perpetrator.  They are there because a large number of offenders are from the victim’s family and friends of families.  To identify the perpetrator can, in a lot of cases, identify the victims.

      You seem to have an incredible blind spot about this.  Would you run a campaign to name victinms?  I would hope not, but that is a likely effect of your campaign to name abusers.

      Like any other right the right of free speech is not absolute.  It is a balancing act, and often an extraordinarily difficult one.  It is clear that you do not like the way this balance has tipped although it seems to me that you are incapable of understanding that there even is a balance here.

    • The Battle Rages On says:

      07:52am | 22/12/11

      I fail to see how identifying a sexual predator is akin to running a campaign to name victims.

      The issue is not hiding the crime, but making the perpetrator known to the public. Your post makes no sense.

      Why does our legal system protect perpetrators of digusting crimes, yet do nothing to protect the most innocent of victims?

      These people who harm children for sexual gratification ruin the lives of their victims. A child who is sexually abused will carry that with them for the rest of their life, tainting every thing they will ever experience.

      The burden is taken off the perpetrators by protecting their identities, and the fact that a journo like DH is punished for identifying these failures of human beings is absurd.

      Good for you Hinch, anyone with a basic concept of right and wrong would have done the same thing.

    • malohi says:

      08:14am | 22/12/11

      @the battle
      Your first sentence says it all. Until you can read Iansands erudite post and overcome that simple hurdle. You will be nothing more than a rabid pleb out for mob justice.

    • Swarley says:

      08:18am | 22/12/11

      “The issue is not hiding the crime, but making the perpetrator known to the public. Your post makes no sense.”

      *sigh*  Which identifies, most of the time, the victim.  Despite what the media says, most victims are from the same family.  What do you think the first question for kids would be if kids parents find out another kid at school’s father/mother was just prosecuted?  Cue school yard bullying on top of whatever else they’ve been through, the whispers etc…

      There are other considerations for the safety of society too.  If you offer someone no chance of rehab if they want it, what do you think the chances of any rehabilitation are?  The severity of the crimes will increase.  It’s human nature.  If someone says “You’re life’s over if you do this one small thing” vs “You’re life’s over if you go nuts and have the time of your life”, what do you think someone is going to do?  Show restraint?  No, they’ll go out like it’s the last day of their life, because the consequences will be the same.

    • stevekag says:

      08:18am | 22/12/11

      @ The battle rages on…....
      When or where do we stop in breaking laws we don’t like?
      Anyone with a basic concept of right or wrong would not have done what DH did.
      This is not about naming or shaming or fighting a good fight about breaking the law, he was also put under house arrest because of his ill health and now says that was tough, i think jail would have been tougher.
      Yes it was tailored for him but that was due to his ill health.  I think the law was actually kind to him considering he had prior’s for breaking the same law. 

      No you can’t earn a living when you are in jail or house arrest. I think that is the point.  Self serving crap to be honest.

    • Nilbog says:

      08:28am | 22/12/11

      Battle rages on seems to miss the point.

      It’s not about identifying perpetrators, it’s about the privacy of the victim.

      Since a large portion of cases involve indecent acts by a close family member or friend, by naming the perp means one can pretty much identify the victim, who no doubt wants to move on with their life.

      I doubt Hinchy contacted the victim to see if it were okay for him to bring this all up again and splash it over the airwaves.

    • Phil says:

      08:28am | 22/12/11

      I think what Derryn has done is the right thing.
      Yes it could identify the victims but the perpetrator in most cases gets away with a slap on the wrist, maybe a short stint in jail and thats it.
      It goes unknown to the vast majority.

      There is little justice to the victim or the family.
      Maybe if these acts were given a severe punishment that meant the person who did it will forever be reminded by what they have done people wouldnt feel so ripped off about justice.

      The victim has to live with this forever so should the person responsible, their life should be turned in to a special kind of hell for what they do to these kids.

    • Lizzie2 says:

      08:31am | 22/12/11

      @ iansand. By your standard, should not the same protection (of family members) from name association be also applied to family and friends of convicted rapists, murderers, extremists, terrorists and other hideous criminals?

      Or is it just the families of paedophiles who might have absolute right to name suppression?  Are we to believe that the privacy of families and friends of a triple rapist, or an Ivan Milat, should have no privacy rights, but the rights of families and friends of a convicted, repeat offender paedophile trump the rights of parents to safeguard their children?

      Anyway, Hinch’s campaign appears to be supported by the wider community.

      I like him.

    • Strange says:

      08:33am | 22/12/11

      @The Battle Rages On
      You reply to a comment you obviously haven’t read.
      Doesn’t get stranger than this.

    • AdamC says:

      08:48am | 22/12/11

      @Ian Sand, while there is a paucity of information available about this online, from what I can gather Hinch named two convicted sex offenders who were subject to supervision orders. Apparently, the subjects of supervision orders are not allowed to be named or identified. This is especially bizarre given that supervision orders are placed on convicted offenders who have served their sentences but are deemed so dangerous, they cannot be released into the community.

      That’s Victorian ‘justice’ for you, I suppose.

      In any event, I cannot find any evidence that the identities of the offenders Hinch named were suppressed at the request of victims within the offenders’ families. Actually, it appears that the susppression is automatic. And, even if the families of the offenders had sought a suppression, surely even you would agree that the interests of offenders’ families would have to be weighed against the benefits of open justice and the public interest in being aware of notorious offenders at large?

      Incidentally, it also seems that Victoria leads Australia in the use of suppression orders. Another unwanted honour for my fair state.

    • Criminologist says:

      08:59am | 22/12/11

      @Lizzie2

      Rapists are also subject to having their name concealed where it may reveal a victim - if the court so decides.

    • Ray Martino says:

      09:14am | 22/12/11

      Troubling it is that Ian is right. Earlier commentators however weren’t. Unfortunately I can’t give figures, but over 90% from memory, of these offences are committed by a direct family member or a close relative. Ergo, the suppression orders are about victim protection. We can bleat on all we like, but the people Hinch named were in an extreme minority in terms of their victimology. Most perpetrators are not those who randomly pick up a child and commit the offences. Mostly the abuse goes on over a long period of time, and is happening daily.

      The offenders Hinch named, whoever they were, would in all likelihood continue to offend as long as they were able. Most offenders are convicted once, however it is frequently on multiple counts as posited in the earlier paragraph. They do not re-offend and frequently move back into the family environment after counselling of both them and their victim/s. Note I said “frequently, not “usually” or “often”.

      In my view, FWIW, the issue with Hinch is not now and never has been about freedom of speech. Freedom of speech applies to a situation where there is a need for one to express a view on an issue which position may not necessarily be widely held. The Hinch issue was about garnering ratings for his radio program, listened to by the lower intellectually empowered members of society, and garnering a reasonable to high level of income based on the needs of advertisers to have their message about their product, immaterial what that is, (as Hinch to my knowledge never knocked an advertiser back), placed in the ears of as many punters as possible, knowing full-well, that the type who listen to Hinch and his peers Jackie O and that vile Sandilands creature, will not have the critical ability to differentiate between good products and bad. (Think “Maccas”). Problematically for me, if Hinch is so gung-ho about naming and shaming those who harm our kids, I would be starting with MacDonald’s et al, rather than accepting their largess as my due, premised on my ability to attract the attention of those possessed of a critico/intellectual deficit.

    • Ray Martino says:

      09:18am | 22/12/11

      @Malohi talking @the battle
      Your first sentence says it all. Until you can read Iansands erudite post and overcome that simple hurdle. You will be nothing more than a rabid pleb out for mob justice.

      Perfectly said.

    • Ray Martino says:

      09:33am | 22/12/11

      @Lizzie2 - are you a listener to Derryns radio program? You appear to have the same depth of intellect as most of his listeners.

    • AdamC says:

      09:40am | 22/12/11

      So, I have done a little more research. Under s184(1) the Serious Sex Offenders (Detention and Supervision) Act 2009, the Court may restrict the publication of information about the identity of an offender, if it believes it is in the ‘public interest’ to do so. Under s185 Of the Act, the Court must have regard to:

        (a)  whether the publication would endanger the safety of any person;

        (b)  the interests of any victims of the offender;

        (c)  whether the publication would enhance or compromise the purposes of the Act.

      So, the suppression is not automatic, but the Court enjoys broad discretion to make suppression orders. How the Court determines that it is in the ‘public interest’ to shield from scrutiny the most dangerous and unrepentent sex offenders, however, remains a mystery to this mere mortal.

    • Winston says:

      09:53am | 22/12/11

      @AdamC

      Re-read the section you provided, hopefully you will find the answer in there this time.

    • The Battle Rages On says:

      10:33am | 22/12/11

      @  malohi

      ” Your first sentence says it all. Until you can read Iansands erudite post and overcome that simple hurdle. You will be nothing more than a rabid pleb out for mob justice. “


      I disagree.

      Everyone knows Dennis Ferguson by name. He is villified, and so he should be, the man is deranged. But can you name any of his victims? The trauma suffered by a victim of child sex abuse does not increase if the perpetrator is known.

      Not only do you use flawed logic but you also make broad assumptions about the thought process behind my post.

      I am not out for mob justice. I am not condoning that people who commit these acts should be named and shamed so that the public can get revenge.

      It just blows my mind that these people have legal protection.

      @Swarley

      ” * sigh*  Which identifies, most of the time, the victim “


      How?

    • Strange says:

      10:42am | 22/12/11

      And still, The Battle Rages On hasn’t read the comment he is commenting on.
      Strange gets stranger.

    • AdamC says:

      11:01am | 22/12/11

      @Winston, actually, it would be interesting to see Judge’s reasoning in granting these orders. Offenders would no doubt emphasise (a) and argue that they may be attacked by members of the public. However, this threat seems largely imagined. That is, unless people are going around lynching paedos without making the papers. (I imagine offenders making such an application would also argue that anonymity will aid in their re-integration into society. Many of the laiety would dispute this logic.)

      There is also (b), the much-mentioned (at least by commenters here) victims’ interest issue. What is odd about this is that the Act in question only applies to serious sex offenders deemed to be an ongoing risk to the community. Why should only victims of notorious offenders who are still a threat to the public get to keep everything secret? It seems like perverse logic - shouldn’t the victims whose perpetrators are low risk be the ones who have the suppression avenue?

      It all seems a manifestation of that law is an ass principle to me.

    • The Battle Rages On says:

      11:01am | 22/12/11

      Strange says:11:42am | 22/12/11

      And still, The Battle Rages On hasn’t read the comment he is commenting on.
      Strange gets stranger.


      Whats strange is actually the fact that you have posted twice, and added nothing to the conversation.

      Let me break this down for you, as you obviously are having trouble understanding where I’m coming from.

      I did read Iansands post and the meaning I took from it was DH was wrong to name the offenders because he was breaking a suppression order. A suppression order put in place to protect the victims and not necesarily the perpetrators.

      I failed to see how the suppression order protects the the victims identity. I disagree with the notion that by naming a perpetrator you indirectly naming the victim.

      Having had personal experience is matters such as this, I just cant see the logic that leads to the conclusion.

      Again, using my Dennis Ferguson example, it is common knowledge that he is a convicted pedophile. How many of his victims can you name? And if any, can you name them because he was outed for his crimes?

      Why dont you try and put some thought into your response, articulate why you disagree with what I said, rather than labelling something you cant comprehend as strange.

    • iansand says:

      12:10pm | 22/12/11

      This bit “They are there because a large number of offenders are from the victim’s family and friends of families.”

    • Winston says:

      12:11pm | 22/12/11

      @AdamC

      It applies to all victims not just notorious offender’s victims.

      @The Battle Rages On

      You are correct in that all of Australia won’t be able to name a victim after an offender is named, but people locally may be able to, a victim related to an offender might be, a victim in a small town might be able to be identified.  Regardless, the law doesn’t want to take any chances in having any victim go through any more trauma than they have to, that’s what the law is about.

      You would agree that doing everything we can to protect and support the victim comes first?  Even above naming an offender?

    • AdamC says:

      12:28pm | 22/12/11

      @Winston, the Act whose provisions I was quoting does not apply to all offenders, only those deemed to be an ongoing threat to the public once they have completed their sentences.

    • Gladys says:

      07:44am | 22/12/11

      You see? I’m at a loss. I read this and thought it sounded a lot like the first six months of being at home with a baby. Except the ankle bracelet is a baby bjorn.

      I think the magistrate found the punishment which fit the crime.

    • kenneth says:

      08:36am | 22/12/11

      Should have been for the term of his natural life.

      I have a friend who needed a liver, but didn’t get one and died
      money fixes everything.

    • Eric The Red says:

      07:48am | 22/12/11

      You broke the law Mr Hinch so get over it, Why don’t we just give all the laws you don’t agree with the flick would that be ok with you. You say it’s a bad law, But it is still a Law. Until that Law is changed then we have to obey it. Simple! It doesn’t matter if we think we should name these scum or not. Law is Law. You had form and didn’t learn your lesson.

    • nihonin says:

      09:14am | 22/12/11

      Well said ETR and I agree with you, the law may be an arse some of the time, but it’s still the law, even if you don’t agree with it.

    • Chris L says:

      02:52pm | 22/12/11

      I think the prohibition of cannibis is a bad law and I ignore it often grin

    • Steve says:

      04:57pm | 22/12/11

      Spoken like a good minion.

    • Ariel says:

      07:58am | 22/12/11

      Onya Hinch for speaking out about pedophiles and many other evils.  PLEASE when you’re out and about could you speak about about all the kids who are now in detention by order of the Family Court and DoCS .  They can’t be with family they love, or write or call or email or communicate with their loving caring protective parent.  NO! they are made to live with abusers - some are convicted perdophiles! - and silenced partly because of S121 suppression provision in Family Law and partly because their jailer - and that’s not too strong a word - won’t let them communicate.  What use are things like Kidshelpline and websites when kids aren;t allowed near a phone or a computer?  These kids lives are HELL - they feel just as you do only much more because most of them don’t know why they’re in this situation.  And maybe you can’t imagine what it’s like to be a Mum who has brought up their kid/s without doing them any harm and usually a lot of good.  Suddenly these kids are separated from their Mum for no reason by cruel and inhumane judges and they may meet again but only under restricted and unreal circumstances.  We’ve heard a lot lately about Poor Dads - and there are some for sure - but what about the poor KIDS???HELP please!!  these kids can’t speak for themselves but YOU can.  Contact fixingflaws@gmail.com and we’ll give you all the stories you need and the kids want you to tell

    • stevekag says:

      10:10am | 22/12/11

      Sorry Ariel but if you were a real organisation that was out to really help kids your argument would be less emotional and you would have a proper domain.

      Me thinks you may be just as dangerous as the people you pro port to be laying allegations against

    • malohi says:

      10:24am | 22/12/11

      Only in extreme circumstances are kids taken. No sympathy for parents whatsoever in those circumstances. Hmm which is more likely, a vindictive judge who lives to displace kids or crumb semi-literate parents neglecting and abusing kids?
      If you want to fix flaws, start by using paragraphs.

    • Groucho49 says:

      07:58am | 22/12/11

      I don’t image we’d get along too well, Mr Hinch, but this is a great piece.

      Do keep swatting the Herald Sun drones, please. Excellent. Good to see.

      Good luck with the health, and best wishes for Christmas and 2012.

    • James says:

      08:18am | 22/12/11

      Would you have prefered jail? I don’t get it…the punishment is meant to be bad…otherwise it wouldn’t be a punishment. Seems to have worked.

    • Tim the Toolman says:

      08:25am | 22/12/11

      Here are the problems as I see it with breaking this law in particular:

      1)  If you punish someone equally for crimes of varying degrees, the severity of the crimes, on average, should go up.  If you offer no hope of rehabilitation or reintegration, you offer no reason for restraint or for not committing a crime again.  The only alternative is locking people up for life on their first infringement.  Maybe that’s the end game, I don’t know.

      2)  Despite popular myth, people who are abused are frequently abused by family members.  Naming the perpetrator automatically brings questions down on the rest of the family, some of which are likely the ones abused.

      There are issues that affect society and the victims in naming the perpetrators in this instance.  It’s irresponsible and shows a shallow understanding of the consequences of your actions to satisfy a short term emotional high.  Hmm…that sounds familiar.  Wouldn’t it be nice if we could all just think a few steps ahead instead of blindly rushing forward?

    • Lee says:

      08:35am | 22/12/11

      “His mocking, condescending reply: “You weren’t in jail.” I felt like saying: “You try it, sunshine.””

      Well, I’ve tried jail for a decent stretch, champ. And I can tell you, home detention is nothing like jail.

      So you couldn’t go outside? What a surprise, just like jail. Your luxury apartment is so comparable to a cell.

      You coudn’t spruik your book? Poor dear. Similar to getting beaten regularly by a fellow inmate and the screws doing nothing about it.

      What a god damn wuss. No respect for you, champ.

    • chuck says:

      08:36am | 22/12/11

      Slavish adherence to nonsensical laws is the refuge of a coward albeit a law abiding one!
      One has to wonder whose rights are being protected when pedophiles are protected by “blind” justice. Perhaps the legal protagonists have something to hide and that wouldn’t be a first here or elsewhere.

    • Tim the Toolman says:

      09:07am | 22/12/11

      “One has to wonder whose rights are being protected when pedophiles are protected by “blind” justice”

      The victim’s most of the time, and the rest of society.

    • Direct says:

      08:41am | 22/12/11

      And how much is your book “Human Headlines” Derryn? I imagine it would make a great last minute Christmas gift idea for the man who has everything.

    • Max Redlands says:

      08:55am | 22/12/11

      ‘His mocking, condescending reply: “You weren’t in jail.” I felt like saying: “You try it, sunshine.” ‘

      He was right. You weren’t in jail. That’s why it’s called (and is) home detention.

      A world of difference. There is no fear in dropping the soap in your own, private, shower cubicle. (See Jean-Paul Satre- “hell is other people”).

      Re the other comments above Mao Zedong had it right (and I paraphrase) - the law comes out of the barrel of a gun. Even a humble parking ticket is ultimately backed by the threat of violence.

      On a lighter note Mr.H., you should (imho) consider yourself a lucky man despite the travails the vicissitudes of life have brought you. Ms. Weaver strikes me as top sort and you are fortunate to have “known” her.

    • Jordan Gra says:

      08:57am | 22/12/11

      Yeah because those who oppose gay marriage are racists, really nice. You obviously don’t think creating children deserves a privileged place in society, or that children deserve a mother and a father.

    • Winston says:

      09:04am | 22/12/11

      Ask a few hundred thousand prisoners if they would prefer to be home in their apartment.

      You didn’t do jail time no how much you try and fluff it up.

      They took good care of you.

    • ibast says:

      09:07am | 22/12/11

      but of course someone that has served their sentence should have their freedom taken away because reserve special disapproval of their crime.

    • prosperity says:

      09:21am | 22/12/11

      Perhaps you have to live in Melbourne to understand, but love Derryn or hate him, he is one of a very few commentators who speak the truth without fear or favour. Fearless, defiant, honest, a man of causes, he has made somnolent Melbournians rage, laugh and cry over the years, and may he do so for many more.

    • stevekag says:

      09:25am | 23/12/11

      As long has he does not break the law (I live in Melbourne)

    • Matt says:

      09:23am | 22/12/11

      The need to protect the victims’ identities will always outweigh the need to publicise the offenders’ identities.  Thankfully the law realises this, and it’s not going to change anytime soon, so save yourself any further embarrassment.

    • philip says:

      09:32am | 22/12/11

      thing is sure the idea of the law might be noble in itself but it fails to protect those who could be future victims of these creeps there is no escaping the fact that parents and caregivers all have the right to and the expectation of the community to protect their children to do otherwise is considered neglect by the government and by making these laws parents were stopped from making informed decisions and by proxy all males were considered guilty of that crime all because if a parent doesnt know what a particular individuals name and what they look like anyone can be accused without proof. that is where this law fails as noone outside the courts nolonger has the right to protect their own children and anyone found guilty of informing those who need to know go to gaol for the fundamental right of knowledge to protect.

      anyway welcome back Derryn and keep up the good fight

    • Ray Martino says:

      11:55am | 22/12/11

      Yes certainly. But keep it on the radio, where we thinking media consumers don’t have to put up with your bullshit. As for you Philip, get off to Maccas and feed your kids.

    • philip says:

      05:42pm | 22/12/11

      ray you seem to assume alot do you have a problem with someone who actually is seen to do something about the situation or are you in the demographic that seems to enjoy belittling others without knowing them? or dare I say it are you one of those hinch is trying to protect children from?

    • Muzza says:

      09:38am | 22/12/11

      The only thing that saved you from jail time was your health, of which you caused
      through drinking. Next, time I hope the courts won’t be so lenient for someone who is so disrespectful of the law. And yes, YOU have been convicted (and before), that makes you a criminal and you should not profit from your crimes.

    • Brizben says:

      09:39am | 22/12/11

      “The only time I felt encouraged was when they put a countdown clock on my website and I could see the last weeks ticking away ... Not being allowed to use the internet, send emails, use Twitter or Facebook.”

      How could you see the countdown if you were banned form the internet? You realise you just outed yourself to the Dept of Corrections as breaching your sentence.

      I also saw on the Project last night you were drinking white wine when you posted on twitter at 12:01, so much for the new liver.

    • Kate says:

      09:47am | 22/12/11

      I’m not a defender of the ‘rights’ of paedophiles and sex offenders by any stretch of the imagination, but I disagree with Hinch that this is a bad law. The victims have a right to anonymity so they can attempt to rebuild their lives without the threat of public or media attention. If we were allowed to say ‘Mr Smith of X suburb sexually abused his daughter, aged 10’, it wouldn’t take long for someone to put two and two together and identify the victim. The rights of the victim trump the need to expose the predator IMO.

    • AdamC says:

      10:02am | 22/12/11

      But why should that onyl apply to only the most dangerous offenders, whom the Court has effectively acknowldged remain an unnacceptable risk to society? By your logic, the identities of all convicted sex offenders should be suppressed. That is not the case at present.

    • Ibast says:

      10:34am | 22/12/11

      Not only that a number of cases have been lost over the years because it was believed certain individuals were incapable of receiving a fair trial due to their infamy.

    • Kate says:

      03:09pm | 22/12/11

      @AdamC, I do think the identities of all sex offenders should be suppressed. I don’t know why it’s not currently the case.
      I also don’t think these serious offenders should be released if they are deemed an unacceptable risk.

    • Emily says:

      09:50am | 22/12/11

      The idiocy of what you did is that naming paedophiles actually makes them harder for authorities to keep track of. They are more likely to use different names, skip bail conditions, change their appearances of they think they will be or have been publicly named. It puts the public in MORE danger to name them then it does to not. It also exposes the family of offenders and no one deserves to have their name blackened because of what their brother, sister, cousin x or nephew y did. Not to mention the potential to expose victims who may rather remain anonymous and move on with their lives. The law is there for a reason. Many reasons actually.

      And seriously…. On your imprisonment? Suck it up for goodness sake. There are innocent people worse off Every day of their lives then you were during your ‘time’.

    • Dan Webster says:

      10:10am | 22/12/11

      This just sounds like a “growing up” moment in your life.  Your granny was right (Grannies always are) but you still sound like the “victimized small child” “it’s so unfair what they did to me” etc etc etc

      Does it REALLY need to be a public story ?!!

      Shame….Shame.

    • Cranky ol' Bugga says:

      10:12am | 22/12/11

      OMG! Put a sock in it, you boring, self-pitying attention-seeker!
      You are soooo last century. Get yourself a new routine/act or quietly shuffle off to where all has-beens end up…....

    • john says:

      10:27am | 22/12/11

      Who listens to radio these days anyway?

    • Anjuli says:

      10:41am | 22/12/11

      Those who defend the law on this have I bet without a doubt not been sexually assaulted by any one let alone a pedophile I know how mad Derryn must feel.If parliamentarians can name and shame and cops who have the information know where these cretins live, they can keep their children safe what about us the general public. That last sentence was spoken by Derryn in an interview on ABC last night.I reiterate again if it hasn’t happened to you or yours then no one can know how they would feel.

    • Jay says:

      11:10am | 22/12/11

      I agree with Hinch that people should have access to where sex offenders are residing like they do in the US. You don’t see paedophiles being killed or bashed(although if they were I would not lift a finger to stop it.) When these rock spiders disappear into the community then we put the whole community at risk. This rubbish about identifying the victim is rubbish.Paedophilia is the most disgusting and appalling crime there is and yet our judiciary continue to treat it as though it is a minor offence;
      Victims live with the guilt and shame it for the rest of their life but what does the judiciary care or understand. Multiple offenders should be surgically castrated and then thrown in jail for life. They are scum as are those vile and despicable priests that the Catholic and other Churches protected for decades.The irony is that if a distraught parent killed a paedophile they would have the book thrown at them and probably spend the rest of their life in jail, for doing society a favour.

    • lostinperth says:

      12:29pm | 22/12/11

      I wish people would do some research instead of making rubbish statements. In the US, pedos are regularly killed and bashed. As are innocent people who share the same name or look like a pedo.
      The USD system has lead to an increase in re-offending as pedos released from prison are unable to access accomodation, work or treatment.

      It has proved so bad that some areas are looking at reversing the legislation as it is a provable failure due to lynch mobs and people like Jay

    • Ray Martino says:

      01:23pm | 22/12/11

      How in heavens name did you find this particular bit of the Internet? We have kept the doors closed and anyone with an IQ below 60 has not normally been allowed to post. What happened that this got through. Christ, go back to St Marys and be quiet you moron. If you don’t understand the big words, get someone to help you out, but don’t then post your trash here. Up until now this was a relatively reasoned debate, with, I confess some big words, but generally, with only a few exceptions, good reasoning from both sides. Now, you thing, you have interrupted intelligent folks thought patterns, so we have to go back a pace.

      Well done with the use of the spell-checker, however.

    • Trude says:

      11:12am | 22/12/11

      Keep fighting the bad law Derryn, suppressing the names of paedophiles only protects them, not those of us who they abuse.

      Also the evidence laws need to be fairer, Australia-wide, for kids. Kids who can’t yet read a clock or a calendar can’t be expected to give times and dates. Here in SA a bus driver who abuses disabled children gets charges against him dropped, because his victims can’t speak so can’t be cross examined in court.

    • St. Michael says:

      10:55pm | 22/12/11

      By “fairer”, you actually mean “slanted”.

      Kids who can’t yet read a clock or a calendar can’t be expected to give times or dates.  And for much the same reasons the reliability of their memory is not fantastic either.  As has been demonstrated again and again, particularly in the US and here in the “Mr Bubbles” case, it’s easy to get on the paedophile witch hunt bandwagon and get wrongful convictions without tilting the evidentiary standard even further to the prosecution.

    • Pedantic Pete says:

      11:25am | 22/12/11

      “I reiterate again’

      This is a tautology.

    • malohi says:

      11:49am | 22/12/11

      Double inverted to open, single to close.

      Sorry brah.

    • live big for less says:

      11:26am | 22/12/11

      Derryn Hinch the human headline wants to name and shame all pedophiles!
      In the TV SHOW “Criminal Minds” ChaNNel 7 wednesday dec 22 2011, the FBI found that most of the pedophiles in an area all lived at the same address a block of flats which was a mecca for pedophile criminal minds.
      would that happen in Australia if the Human Headline became PM ??

    • Brizben says:

      01:37pm | 22/12/11

      So if there was an online register when a peado got out of jail he could go look up his mates ... hmmm

    • Old Chook says:

      11:30am | 22/12/11

      Keep on doing what your doing Mr Hinch. These evil Bastards need to be exposed and yes! parents do need to know where they are at all times.
      I applaud you Mr Hinch and so do thousands more.

    • Farken says:

      11:59am | 22/12/11

      mr hinch for your repeat offending of Australian law your Australian citizenship if you have it should be revoked and then you to be deported back to your country of birth if they will have you

    • lostinperth says:

      12:25pm | 22/12/11

      You are the biggest hypocrite in Australia, Hinch. You are a repeat offender, you boast about breaking the law, and yet you cry about how tough you did “jail” when you never actually went there. For someone who criticised suspended sentences you seemed very keen to accept one.

      And another case of someone “too ill to go to prison” who has a miraculous recovery once sentence was passed. You could have gone to prison and had exactly the same access to medical treatment as all other repeat law breakers. Yet you seem to think that you deserve special treatment that stops you receiving punishment.

      Cooking stir fry’s? Real hard labour stuff that. Get over yourself, you got off so lightly that if was someone else you would have called the sentence a disgrace. Do the crime - do the time, unless your Derryn Hinch in which case you get to live in luxury and write a book about it.

    • Matt says:

      12:39pm | 22/12/11

      Well said mate!!  Not to mention he seems to think he’s above the law to start with..

      This whole article stinks of hypocrisy, I doubt it’ll be very long before Hinch is before the courts again..

    • Oh the inhumanity says:

      12:32pm | 22/12/11

      I support Derryn’s campaign but complaining about 5 months to watch DVD’s? /Oh the inhumanity./ Spend 5 months in a real jail and see how it compares.

      On the bright side, there’s no cumbersome electronic ankle bracelet - just people watching you go to the toilet and as you shower, set bed-times with lights-out and a very small area - and DVD’s? I’m not so sure.

    • stephen says:

      04:03pm | 22/12/11

      Yeah, I was thinking the same thing.
      5 months of space-cadets on PayTV plus custard’ncrumpets everyday - and not a hairy bikie in sight - must really make it hard getting yer 8 hours shuteye.
      And if it’s so bad at home with an ankle bracelet, how come Derryn don’t force such an extreme tild against the pedophile ?

    • Tim says:

      12:36pm | 22/12/11

      What has the Punch got against publishing factual comments?
      I’ve now had three blocked on this thread.

    • Con Spiros says:

      01:56pm | 22/12/11

      Now Tim,  If the people who pay large cash figures for good press hear or read anything honest that will hurt their marketing strategy they ring the wimp editor and threaten their dollars will be withdrawn,Labor is a perfect example !!

    • Tim says:

      02:26pm | 22/12/11

      I just think it’s funny that the Punch say they don’t do censorship but they’re more than willing to pull comments even if they contain information that is freely on the public record.

      Especially in an article about free speech by Derryn Hinch.

    • old fart says:

      01:10pm | 22/12/11

      wow, if you have a liver transplant, the grey in your hair and beard disappear

    • get it for less says:

      01:54pm | 22/12/11

      whats the bottom line, human headline?

    • neo says:

      03:02pm | 22/12/11

      Haha, the human headline doesn’t think too big of himself clearly.

    • Black Ball says:

      03:30pm | 22/12/11

      Serial sex offenders should be either locked up forever or have a ballectomy X 2

    • MargD says:

      03:50pm | 22/12/11

      Not a big fan of Hinch BUT at least he has the courage to buck the system when it comes to child molesters.  Who gives a rats a**e about these low lifes because clearly they don’t give a rats about the childfren whose lives they have wrecked. It’s high time the law was changed.

    • Superfunk says:

      03:59pm | 22/12/11

      Why are you “celebrating Christmas” if you claim to be an atheist?

    • Stew Collins says:

      09:50pm | 22/12/11

      You broke the law and you were given a just sentence. Stop complaining. By the way a liver tumour can be caused by alcohol consumption. As for the reference to Spandau prison, give us a break. Although you were intolerable before and you will continue to be so, I’m glad you are in good health and hope that you take the opportunity of an extended life to make something useful of it.

    • Pete says:

      05:35am | 23/12/11

      Apart from that, wasnt it you who said that it would be unfair to send the donor’s liver to prison because it was innocent. That really showed huge respect to the donor and their family.  I think your mouth and bravodo far exceed the real size of your true commitment to your “causes” except of course if it’s the cause of self promotion.

 

Facebook Recommendations

Read all about it

Punch live

Up to the minute Twitter chatter

ToryShepherd

Cheeky beers with morning papers in unexpected sunshine http://t.co/MD7VPRne

Anthony Sharwood

http://t.co/Zq0nGxkf nice pic of Thredbo this morning

Paul Colgan

@seamus yeah it's now called Smooth or Soft or Douchey Dad FM or something

Paul Colgan

It's a Sydney thing, but 95.3FM... Why? It used to be all Bohemian Rhapsody and Walk this Way; now it's Father to Son and Country Road. Wah.

Recent posts

The latest and greatest

We don’t deserve this huge, exciting scientific project

We don’t deserve this huge, exciting scientific project

I’d like to be able to say that sharing the world’s largest radio telescope with South Africa…

Mining money talks the loudest in Australian politics

Mining money talks the loudest in Australian politics

When North Queensland Liberal MP George Christensen got the idea of launching a new political organisation…

Please enter your password

Please enter your password

Help! I’ve succumbed to a crippling modern illness that can strike at any moment. Symptoms include:…

Nosebleed Section

choice ringside rantings

From: They must pay for one’s bitter disappointments

Michael S says:

"A teacher at Geelong Grammar had criticised her for using words that were too long, which had left her confused and had made her doubt her ability to write essays. She became ''quite distressed'' when her English marks began to fall." I can sympathise. My scholastic mentors conveyed to me a causal relationship… [read more]

From: Welfare for breeders is a bonus for everyone

Change Up! says:

I have no problem paying my taxes. As a single, childless person on a very decent income, I can afford it and not have my life severely altered. Plus I understand that my taxes paying for things like schools, childcare and infrastructure is ultimately a good thing. A better community is better for me… [read more]

Gentle jabs to the ribs

They must pay for one’s bitter disappointments

They must pay for one’s bitter disappointments

A private school girl’s family is sueing her elite, extremely expensive private school for not… Read more

243 comments

Newsletter

Read all about it

Sign up to the free daily Punch newsletter