Pedophile “monster” knee-jerk reaction

One of the strange turns in the history of ideas in the twentieth century and now the twenty-first has been first the identification of sexuality as a key element of personality and in particular the “discovery” of infantile sexuality under the influence of Sigmund Freud (though not only Freud) and secondly the increased awareness of long-term psychological trauma, including trauma which is caused by (adverse) experiences in childhood and adolescence.

Of course, when it comes to human behaviour, there is very little that is new under the sun, although the terms in which discussion of such behaviour are formulated are susceptible to reformulation. The notion that events early in life can have a powerful effect is hardly new to Freud, and perhaps Freud’s distinctive innovation was the medicalisation of matters which previously would have been considered to be either religious or moral, even assuming these categories could be considered distinctly. The notion of psychological trauma is itself a medicalisation of the idea of some deep-seated adverse effect.

By whatever route (and in beginning to attempt it, I realise my inadequacy to trace the causes) we have reached a point where one of the key anxieties of the age is the modern monster, the pedophile and his (rarely her) associated vices of child pornography. In my own sentient lifetime, the tide has turned in that respect. As recently as 1981, the Queensland sociologist/criminologist, Paul Wilson, published The Man They Called a Monster, about Clarrie Osborne, a court reporter who had sexual encounters with hundreds of teenage boys (and who taped and transcribed his conversations with them). Wilson, who interviewed Osborne (who committed suicide after he was arrested) and some of the boys, argued that Osborne’s monstrosity and the harmful effects of his actions on the boys were overstated, and even called for the abolishing of age-of-consent laws altogether.

It is unlikely that Wilson would publish such a book today.

Geoffrey Leonard did self-publish such a book. He lodged copies of it in various libraries, including the State Library of NSW and the National Library. He also published it and other books on the internet.

His problem is that, unlike Paul Wilson (or maybe not), he is a “monster.” In 1989 he pleaded guilty to a number of offences involving two brothers, aged 13 and 16, and served 2 or 3 years in Cooma Gaol as a result. One bee in his bonnet is that his offences were characterized as sexual assaults by reason of the legal incapacity of 13 and 16 year old boys to consent to sexual activity (that has now changed in the case of 16 year-olds) but he does not accept that what he did should be called an assault. He does not believe that there should be any age-based sexual consent laws.

Leonard first came to public attention as a result of a charge brought agaist him in 2004 of loitering at St Andrew’s Cathedral. He was acquitted of this charge by Magistrate Pat O’Shane in January 2005.

Leonard had been attending services at the cathedral. In 2001 he had sent a copy of one of his books, Sex and Gender 2001, unsolicited to a 16-year-old boy in the choir. The dean wrote to him stating that he was welcome to attend the services, but that he must “never have unsupervised contact with any of the … members of the choir” and that he should not send boys unsolicited material of any kind.

In 2004 there were further complaints that Leonard had been taking photographs of some boys with his mobile phone, that he had been “following” the choir and that he had spoken to one boy and shaken his hand.  Leonard denies these matters.  The cathedral authorities responded by requiring him to stop attending their services. At the end of the service when they had notified him of this, they called police and he was arrested for “loitering.” His acquittal was essentially on the ground that the time for him to leave the cathedral according to the tenor of the letter which had been given to him had not yet arisen, so that the charge (which is a pretty cumbersome one) was premature.

Following this acquittal, Leonard attracted the attention of A Current Affair. I have provided the link to one (possibly incomplete) story rather than embed the youtube site because it is too excruciating for me to want to have it here. If you can bear to watch it, you may well infer that A Current Affair‘s reporter hounded Leonard for some time in order to provoke a response which, suitably edited, convincingly depicted him as a classic “monster.” In rising to the bait, Leonard certainly did not serve himself well. A story in the Sydney Morning Herald followed (and I presume other press attention). Subsequently, notwithstanding the initial opinion of the police reported in that story that Leonard had done nothing illegal, the full majesty of the law descended upon him.

He is now facing a charge, on indictment in the District Court, that:

“Between 19 September 2005 and 7 March 2006 at Sydney in the State of New South Wales, Geoffrey William Leonard, used a carriage service, namely the Internet, to make available child abuse material.”

This was because (and here I am paraphrasing the summary of the facts in a judgment of the NSW Court of Criminal Appeal) he had a website on which he published material about himself and his involvement in what he called “man-boy love”. The website was used, inter alia, as a vehicle to promote his views that there should be changes to existing laws regarding sexual crimes against children. On the website he published a 124 page article entitled “Punished for Love”. Within this article there was an edited police fact sheet and edited police statements of two males and of their father, concerning the sexual acts committed on the two males (brothers then aged 13 years and 16 years) to which I have already referred. It is the edited police fact sheet and edited police witness statements which are alleged to constitute child abuse material, the subject of the charge.

You can find the relevant statutory provisions summarised in that judgment. The immediately relevant parts are that:

“(1) A person is guilty of an offence if:

(a) the person:

(iv) uses a carriage service to make material available; or
(v) uses a carriage service to publish or otherwise distribute material; and

(b) the material is child abuse material.”

A “carriage service” includes the internet.

“Child abuse material” is relevantly defined as:

“(b) material that describes a person who:

(i) is, or is implied to be, under 18 years of age; and
(ii) is, or is implied to be, a victim or torture, cruelty or physical abuse;

and does this in a way that reasonable persons would regard as being, in all the circumstances, offensive.”

Anyone with the slightest familiarity with police facts sheets and witness statements would be aware that there could be nothing in these materials themselves or the manner in which they described what happened which reasonable persons would regard as being offensive.  For the offence to be made out, it would be necessary to find that the publication of those statements by Leonard in his book changed the way that those events were described so that the way that the events were described was now a way that reasonable persons would regard as being, in all the circumstances, offensive.

Even allowing for the potential sting in that phrase in all the circumstances, I find it very difficult to see how the publication by Leonard of the facts sheets and witness statements, however offensive people may consider that to be, could relevantly have changed the way that they describe the events in question.

Incidentally, it is an offence to publish such material in a way which identifies the victims, and given that Leonard does not appear to have been charged with that offence, you may assume that he edited the statements so as not to identity the boys or their father.

The Court of Criminal Appeal rejected an appeal by Leonard against the rejection in the District Court of various legal challenges by him to the charges.  The decision, which was in effect to leave it all to the jury, is not so exceptional, but you have to wonder if the process should ever have got so far.  I am very disappointed that the Commonwealth DPP should have, against the AFP’s own initial and (at least in my opinion) better  judgment, brought the charges.  I am even more disappointed that a magistrate should have considered that a jury, properly instructed, could convict him. In this area of the law, as with terrorism-related offences, magistrates seem all-too-inclined to follow the path of least resistance and decide that the hard questions are all ones which should be left to the jury.

Leonard is not an attractive character in the eyes of many and his views are, to say the least, unpopular. He is unrepentant, but that in itself is not a crime. It may be that there should be a law against sex offenders publishing writings incorporating evidence used in the proceedings against them, but at present there is no such law.

Leonard may have some defences.  The Court of Criminal Appeal makes some reference to these in its judgment. Conversely, if Leonard has committed an offence, so too may have numerous others, including the gang from A Current Affair if they accessed his web pages. It is also an offence to “use a carriage service to access” such material.

Finally, it is pathetically necessary for me to add that I neither agree with Leonard’s views nor condone his conduct.


Leonard’s special leave application to the High Court was dismissed by Justices Gummow and Kiefel on 24 April 2008.

Further Update

On 5 September 2008, following a trial in which he defended himself unrepresented, Mr Leonard was sentenced by Judge Berman SC to 6 months imprisonment on the offence of using the internet to publish child abuse material. This is to be served concurrently with a sentence of one year (9 months non-parole) for possession of 276 child pornography images found (deleted) on his computer when it was seized by the police, a charge to which he had pleaded guilty.

59 Responses to “Pedophile “monster” knee-jerk reaction”

  1. Legal Eagle Says:

    As a matter of law, it seems to me from the definition of “child abuse material” that excerpts from police fact sheets could not fit within that description. Certainly, lurid accounts would be another thing altogether, but police fact sheets are typically devoid of emotional content.

    Such cases are the “hard cases” insofar as freedom of speech is concerned. I have noted this in a previous post, mentioning, inter alia, a political party of pedophiles in Holland which sought to have the age of consent lowered.

    As long as no one is harmed by the actions of people like Leonard or the Dutch political party, I think that they should be allowed to have freedom of speech to campaign for a change of laws, no matter how much their values may be repugnant and offensive to me. I am also free to choose to reject their views – that’s what free speech is all about.

  2. marcellous Says:

    Before we even get to “freedom of speech” (of which we have remarkably little in Australia) there is an even simpler issue, namely freedom from overzealous prosecution of an extremely flimsy charge.

    As you will have seen, Leonard tried to raise a freedom of speech issue in his appeal to the Court of Criminal Appeal, but the court brushed it aside on the basis that if the material really is offensive as alleged (which is up to the jury to decide) then it falls outside the implied constitutional protection. That is why what I am really not happy about is the decision to prosecute and the decision by the magistrate (assuming there was a commital) to commit for trial.

  3. Legal Eagle Says:

    I agree, I don’t think they should have prosecuted this guy. In any case, it might be counterproductive – such people tend to have a persecution complex to begin with, and by prosecuting such a baseless charge, the authorities are just confirming it.

    There are far more serious crimes out there. The authorities would be better off devoting resources to prosecuting those other perpetrators.

  4. Club Troppo » Missing Link, Tuesday 10 July Says:

    […] has a challenging post on knee-jerk reactions to a criminal case involving a […]

  5. Geoffrey Leonard Says:

    What is refreshing about the comments is that they are literate and reasonable, and they are addressing the issues and not the person. A splattered egg is not a good response to an argument, no matter how bad it may be.

    And now for the points raised in the blog.
    (1) Why is it strange to suggest that sexuality is a key element of personality?
    I don’t find it strange. My post refers to a strange turn as a result of the two matters referred to in the first paragraph.
    (2) It is a sad commentary on the state of affairs today that Paul Wilson probably would not be writing his book now.
    (3) I have in fact published 15 books, all of which were on the web-site. The Crown has chosen to put two in evidence, “Punished for Love” and “Last Throw of the Dice”. Both of these contained the police charge sheets and proofs of evidence that are the subject of the present charge.
    (4) The stuff mentioned as “as a bee in my bonnet” is in fact central to my “political comment” and it is in support of my contentions that I published the stuff (basically) verbatim. I wanted my “comment” to be grounded on hard objective evidence.
    “Bee in bonnet” was meant to indicate a matter of particular personal concern which may not be agreed with, shared or experienced with the same level of intensity by others.
    (5) The reason the loitering charge was thrown out had nothing to do with the “Cathedral” evidence at all – all of which was irrelevant. The sole relevant evidence was that a police officer had observed me to remain in the cathedral after the service instead of immediately leaving. It was held that it was normal practice for worshippers to socialise in a church after the end of a service, and that therefore I had a reasonable excuse to be present. It is in fact uncommon for persons to immediately leave the premises after the termination of a service – at least in Protestant churches.
    The service finished with the choir processing out of the catheral, so that it was no longer present in the premises at the end of the service.
    (6) The name of the book is in fact “Sex and Gender in 2001”. I contend that the Cathedral’s response was an extreme over and inappropriate reaction. But nevertheless thereafter I was punctilious in observing the instructions.
    I have corrected the title of the book, which was drawn from the Cathedral’s account.
    (7)All of the stuff alleged against me that led up to my being banned from the Cathedral is rubbish. I have dealt with the matters in “Expelled” and “Last Throw of the Dice”. There is considerable material to found a defamation action. I deny all of the allegations made. The legal basis of banning a person from entry into a public place and place of public worship (and the Cathedral is a public place) seems to me to be dodgy in the extreme, but nevertheless I now worship in other and more congenial places and where my welcome is unqualified.
    I have changed the entry to make it clearer that these were complaints, and that you deny them.
    (8) The background is the political opposition to the Jensen faction which took over the Cathedral in 2003, in which I played a leading role. The conflict within the Sydney Anglican Diocese is deep and bitter.
    (9) “Leonard is not an attractive character”. Is this assessment based on a personal acquaintance? The problem with the whole of this piece is that there is no name put to it. In this life I mostly keep to myself so that not too many people are exposed to my unattractive side. For those that are I offer my sincere apologies, and plead my age of now 73. This apology is not extended to star boy reporters from ACA – not This Day Tonight.
    This was meant to draw on “character” as this word is used in defamation and the law of evidence: that is, the way that many members of the community view you, which is a preliminary to the second part of the sentence involving the views you express. My point is and remains that it is wrong to charge people with crimes just because they and their views are unpopular. I have corrected the reference to the title of the TV program involved.
    (10) Summing up, I appreciate the relative fairness of the commentary, and the commonsense assessment of my present situation but the faceless and nameless commentator should realise that much of his commentary reveals itself as being based on hearsay, and that he should be aware of the limitations that this implies. I thank the responders for their remarks.

  6. Geoffrey Leonard Says:

    Thank you for your clarifications and corrections. I don’t think that there can be any dispute that the object of the exercise was to remove my website because of the content of its political comment (in the Lange sense), using as a pretext the police charge sheet and statements of evidence.
    It should be a matter of record that never in all of the course of my writing career (and Punished for Love appeared in 1996) did it ever occur to me that they in any way contained stuff that was exciting, sexually or otherwise. They were merely statements of forensically significant fact. You made this point about the nature of the stuff, as did, in effect, the Chief Justice.
    Our case is that the DPP is fragrantly missusing the Act (S474.22 of CCA) away from what even I would concede is its quite legitimate purpose towards some, but manifestly not quite so legitimate, purpose of its own.
    At issue is not just my fate (and my particular “bee in my bonnet”) but governmental control of the Internet, and since the Internet is now the major source of information and means of exchange of ideas and opinion, our constitutional system of responsible and representative government.
    Yesterday, I (standing in for Counsel) gave notice to the District Court that we intend to refer the matter to the High Court on, inter alia, constitutional grounds.
    Thank you for your interest.

  7. Geoffrey Leonard Says:

    Finally: I am unapologetic for my views. There are two ways in which to view the human condition, (1) the religious,spearheaded by the Catholic and evangelical protestant churches and. (2) the biological or scientific view and the one with which “anonymous” appears to so strongly disagree. Freud taught that for a person to deny “nature” is at peril to his mental and physical health, and that for us to attain our full potential as adults requires that we have our best possible and physical health, and I believe, further, that love underlies a fulfilled and, in the moral sense, good life and that to be able to love implies that we are free. And that anything that denies and impedes our development on our way to becoming adults is a crime against, us, humanity, and God.
    I see this as the common-sense view and the way of good and healthy personal relationships and I oppose it to the legal view which is the way of the Catholic and extreme Protestant evangelical churches, and which is the way of power as opposed to the way of love, and the way which I believe is the true Christian way. I believe that there is very little Christianity to be found in either the Catholic Church as a whole or in St Andrew’s Cathedral, Sydney under the present regime.

  8. Geoffrey Leonard Says:

    It is not to be wondered at that the sources of power, the Church, the media and the law, in our community so strongly favour the legal point of view, and that anybody who dares to love must expect punishment and persecution, and indeed this was the fate of Christ. But not in the end. In the end we will win.

    • eviltreemonster edited Says:

      Comment left under the above moniker- obviously delivered from the heart:

      Geoffery Leonard. Have you gone mad? Have you any ideo of the harm that you do to young kids when you misuse them like that? I guess there’s no point in arguing with one who won’t see the truth. You may as well become a Muslim because the false prophet muhammud was and is the ultimate pedophile. Islam is full of dirty baby rapers like you. I really hope there is a God because then you will get what’s comming to you. :(

      Wow! How did this person suddenly veer off to left field to open up a second front against Islam and “the false prophet muhammud”?

  9. Lewthwaite « Stumbling on melons Says:

    […] conditions and back into custody of some sort, Ninglun has linked to some of my earlier posts about knee-jerk reactions to pedophilia and court orders made about serious sex […]

  10. Ten months review « Stumbling on melons Says:

    […] best day came from a sudden interest in Geoffrey Leonard, possibly because the you-tube footage of his A Current Affair outing achieved new currency for […]

  11. Ten months review redux « Stumbling on melons Says:

    […] best day came from a sudden interest in Geoffrey Leonard, possibly because the you-tube footage of his A Current Affair outing achieved new currency for […]

  12. Patricia Moloney Says:

    “If you can bear to watch it, you may well infer that A Current Affair’s reporter hounded Leonard for some time in order to provoke a response which, suitably edited, convincingly depicted him as a classic “monster.” In rising to the bait, Leonard certainly did not serve himself well”.

    Leonard did not serve himself well???? Are you out of your mind??? What a stupid thing to say, this man is an animal, he has already been prosecuted for sexually abusing two boys, openly admits that pedophilia should be legalised AND published books on pedophilia! YOU obviously have no understanding of the effects of sexual abuse on the survivors? How can you say that you don’t agree with this animals views or condone what he has done? You came here to defend him….sick! SICK!!!

    “Be the change that YOU wish to see in the world”

  13. sammy Says:

    so what happened to this website? it was taken down?

  14. marcellous Says:


  15. chris Says:

    you are a shithouse!

    no, i am not sorry for what i did

    geoffery leonard is a sick, deranged, pedophile.

  16. zimmerman8k Says:

    “It’s about molesting young boys. How to do it. Aaaaaah”- Geoffrey Leonard (discussing his books)

    So was Geoffrey just joking when he stressed this point twice during the interview? Did the pressure from the reporter somehow trick him into incriminating himself for something he hadn’t done?

  17. marcellous Says:

    @ zimmerman8k

    Obviously just joking, or rather, being sarcastic. If the book were really about “how to molest young boys” you can be sure that Leonard would be facing other charges or that there would at least be a reference to this in either the Court of Appeal judgment or the very brief High Court decision referred to in the post.

  18. zimmerman8k Says:

    Ok, at the very least you’d have to conceed he’s extremely foolish, short tempered and erratic?

  19. marcellous Says:

    I did say (though this attracted criticism from Patricia Moloney above) that you might conclude that he did not serve himself well. As to “short-tempered,” I don’t know (and I’m assuming you don’t know) how long the “reporter” followed him.

  20. zimmerman8k Says:

    It doesn’t matter how long the reported followed him. He could have just gone home and refused to speak to him. He chose to answer in a way that was obviously going to make him come across as a monster. He needs to take some personal responsibility for his stupidity.

  21. marcellous Says:


    So must we all [take some personal responsibility for our stupidity] but I think that is an entirely different point.

    Whatever Leonard said to Today Tonight, the prosecutors know what is actually in the book. I don’t think responsibility for your stupidity extends to facing a gaol sentence for an offence which you did not commit.

  22. marcellous Says:

    Someone calling his or herself “Batmanvontrapp” has left the following comment:

    “What the fuck is this shit, standing up for a paedophile.

    Oh you must be a member of the manboylove association also.

    Good day to you sir, sorry for ever imagining that Mr Leonard was a paedophile. The courts got it oh so wrong.”

    I am not approving the comment per se as this will mean that this person can continue to comment without my approval. Just for the record then, Mr Leonard did commit offences in relation to two boys for which he has served a term of imprisonment. That does not mean, in my book, that he should be charged for the present alleged offences for writing a book and publishing it on the internet if, as appears to me, he has not committed offences even within the terms of the very broadly drafted statutory provisions in question.

  23. Annual review « Stumbling on melons Says:

    […] Geoffrey Leonard continues to be my most popular (in a manner of speaking) subject, closely followed by a misleadingly-titled post about my cat. […]

  24. AK Says:

    hey Geoff, add my msn, i wanna see some of ur essays :D

    Cheers from Canada m8

    That’s up to Mr Leonard, AK, but of course you can’t see them (or at least the one the subject of the charges) and none of us can see them because the website has been taken down and we would (it is alleged) be committing an offence if we possessed them or accessed them. Mr Leonard can’t send them to you or anybody else because he would be charged with an offence if he so much as tried to do so.

  25. skepticlawyer » The Bill Henson ‘kiddy porn’ fiasco Says:

    […] an excellent post on exactly how these laws work in practice (using an earlier case) available at Marcellous’ place, one of our commenter’s blogs. Before you read it and assume that Marcellous is doing the […]

  26. Colonel Intense Says:

    I think it’s a very interesting debate on the limits of freedom of speech. There is no doubt that Mr Leonard was negatively portrayed within the ACA piece, but his actions were sickening.

  27. filthy squalos Says:

    Who cares about all of this theoretical stuff? Geoff is just bloody entertaining! Plan and simple. I hope to see more of his antics soon.
    Keep up the good work, Geoff.

  28. Fourteen-month review « Stumbling on melons Says:

    […] Pedophile “monster” knee-jerk reaction, 2,287 views (1,220) […]

  29. Sixteen-month review « Stumbling on melons Says:

    […] Pedophile “monster” knee-jerk reaction, 3,238 views (2,287) [1,220] […]

  30. Knee-jerk reaction carried through « Stumbling on melons Says:

    […] reaction carried through I have previously written about Mr Leonard, who was charged with using the internet to publish child abuse […]

  31. eviljim Says:

    The man is a sick twisted fuck who publishes filthy books that he hands to unwitting boys in the hopes that they’ll be intrigued and offer themselves to him. That way if anyone charges him with sexual abuse he can claim it was “consensual”.

    He is absolute slime and the fact that you’re even defending his right to publish these piece of shit is abominable. In doing so you’re either a pedophile sympathizer or just plain stupid. Take your pick.

  32. Simpsons’ child pornography « Stumbling on melons Says:

    […] prosecutors, and I see that the same solicitor was involved in Mr McEwen’s case as in that of Mr Leonard. But, quite frankly, that is the mindset of the prosecutor, and prosecutors were ever thus. This […]

  33. cliffy Says:

    Geoffrey Leonard. . . .you are a grub

  34. ANGEL of revenge Says:

    This is an edited comment

    Freedom of speech is allowed for all, even when the subject could be hard to handle and except. But the unfortunate case of geoffrey leonard is that he is a very disturbed and weak minded person, although he thinks of himself as an academic; i beg to differ. The only way he is saying that he can experiance the full human life of love is by touching young boys inappropiately and for young boys to touch ….[him] the same way. Lets all sit back and really read between the lines and see that …[Leonard] is gay and for some reason he can not have an adult gay relationship, which only he knows why.

    [more deleted after this]

  35. Michael Says:

    Perhaps someone more legally literate can explain to me how Mr Leonard’s case sits in relation to the recent fiasco surrounding the underage kids in the co-called ‘Alfie’ affair where a 12 year old was supposed to have fathered a child with an underaged girl in the UK.

    Although it turned out to be another lad and sensibly all the underage kids involved haven’t been charged with anything-why was a tabloid newspaper-part of a chain that also publishes in Australia, allowed ot escape scot-free from cristicism and the sort of kneee jerk reactions we can se eon here and generally in the media, when they tried to PAY all involved for the story ?.

    I find it very odd that the general public out there-and they always seem to be the very ones who screech the loudest, have what appears to me a fairly unhealthy appetite for these tales. The more they read the more they scream, or so it seems.

  36. YourMother Says:

    This is all bullshit people. Geoffrey is just a crazy old fat pedophile. He’s manipulative and twisted. He’s just using a bunch of political and religious nonsense to justify his actions. Molesting little kids is obviously wrong. It’s as simple as that. Oh, and he’s gay which is obviously wrong too. A PENIS GOES INTO A VAGINA YOU MORON!!!!!!

  37. Margaret Penelope Says:

    any kind of defence against an act such as sodomy to underaged children (if these people can sodomize and penetrate teens, young children, toddlers, what’s stopping them from penetrating infants? incidents which have time and again happened, as you can clearly see from any decent search on the net) is a clear indication of a downward spiral of society. i call upon any individual still endowed with common sense to fight against this trend, of playing with words and dancing around loopholes, of wasting time on minor issues such as freedom of speech and focus on the obvious: child sex results into mental and physical damage, including internal bleeding and ruptures on the body of the child, anger, hatred and disgust, and their inevitable spiral into decadence and rebellion and crime in their adult years. the effects of child abuse is a case study that no longer needs to be proven – it already has been proven. let’s not defend it in anyway, just because an offense of a perpetrator do not exactly fit into the letter of the law. it’s the spirit that matters – and the spirits of these motherfucking assholes are hellbent on sodomizing all our children should they get the chance.

  38. marcellous Says:

    “(if these people can sodomize and penetrate teens, young children, toddlers, what’s stopping them from penetrating infants? incidents which have time and again happened, as you can clearly see from any decent search on the net)”

    On that line of reasoning, you should be asking “What’s to stop people who can “penetrate” adults from penetrating infants?”

  39. Margaret Penelope Says:

    Marcellous, I cannot agree to your opinion that – “On that line of reasoning, you should be asking “What’s to stop people who can “penetrate” adults from penetrating infants?”

    Consenting adults who agree to have sex with other consenting adults is nothing out of the ordinary – it’s called the propagation of our species.

    Assuming that evolution were true, as Geoffrey Leonard has made references to it, in defence of his sexual preferences – there is nothing evolutionary about having sex with very young children who cannot produce offspring anyway. In one incident of a man who was charged with abusing and having sex with his week old baby in recent days, one psychologist has in fact stated that child or infant sex is not natural – meaning it’s an acquired taste perhaps as a result of long term exposure or even similar abuse done on the perpetrator when he was a child. What’s to stop the rest of us from fucking babies? Simple – it’s not in our instinct to do so! Science has called it an aberration. What’s to stop pedophiles from transferring their “affections” from older children who can better withstand the physical molestation on their more flexible nether parts to infants who will doubtless die from the same sexual act committed on their own fragile bodies? NOTHING! iN THE WORDS OF THIS MONSTER GEOFFREY LEONARD “THERE SHOULD NOT BE AN AGE LIMIT”

  40. High Kalibur Says:

    I do not understand the aim of this “article”…? I pose a question: How is it that you can harm someone and rationalize it with “love”. Besides the point that emotions aren’t rational, raping kids can only be derived by way of force, not mutual consent and as a corollary carries the motive of self-gratification. Love is sacrifice. How is anal to penis, old man erection around kids healthy, natural or “loving”?

    A persuasive argument can be forged from many angles — I hear supposedly from the guy himself a defense for his actions on standpoints of “love” and reasoning for it against “power” and “law”. That’s nothing but a smokescreen.

    What about morality? If the only true freedom is in your heart, then the only real justice is in your mind. And “reasonable” people, in your mind, you think that grown, human, adults placing their penis on or around teenage boys and any and all event that can ensue furthermore are moral?

    What about human decency? Rhetorical.

    I see blurbs about science, health so on and so forth blah, blah, blah well, how about the fact that scientifically speaking a human at the age of 16 is not mentally or physically developed to the natural stage necessary for ass rape.


    It’s ok to be gay! It is not okay to make the decision for children to participate in sodomy.

    Just because this guy, apparently, inconsequently, hitherto and notwithstanding the aforementioned can for paragraphs with unnecessary transitions and adjectives does not make him a scholar.

    Obviously this guy wants to be to pedophilia what L. Ron Hubbard is to Scientology or should I say Geoff Leonard is like the L. Ron Hubbard of Pedophilia! By confusing the weak minded he is garnering support for an ideology that children being ass raped is a practice society should condone. Many wanna be ass rapers look to rationalize their own boy-love intentions and in so doing confide in Geoffrey.

    Love playing any part in the rape of a child is illogical and unscientific because a child has not developed the emotional mental faculties necessary for the integration of rational sex and love association.

    I’ll cite some fine work if it becomes necessary (yeah post this and mount a valid defense please). Geoffrey Leonard supporters suck! You weirdos are the first thing I found about Australia I didn’t love. Ew.

    Because someone has already said and for lack of apraphrasing and well, who cares?:

    “This is all bullshit people. Geoffrey is just a crazy old fat pedophile. He’s manipulative and twisted. He’s just using a bunch of political and religious nonsense to justify his actions. Molesting little kids is obviously wrong. It’s as simple as that. Oh, and he’s gay which is obviously wrong too. A PENIS GOES INTO A VAGINA YOU MORON!!!!!!”

    • marcellous Says:

      There is a bit of a focus here on “ass rape.” Just as a point of information, I don’t know where you get that GL “ass raped” any teenage boy, even if he doesn’t consider there should be an age of consent for anal sex.

      If you don’t understand the aim of the article I can only suggest that you read it again. It’s about whether what GL did by publishing his books online containing edited and redacted so as to be anonymised versions of police-prepared statements of evidence used to lay charges against him to which he had previously pleaded guilty and served a sentence of imprisonment merited the charges he faced when the post was first written, and the subsequent conviction and sentence of imprisonment.

  41. Dark Warrior Says:

    “I see blurbs about science, health so on and so forth blah, blah, blah well, how about the fact that scientifically speaking a human at the age of 16 is not mentally or physically developed to the natural stage necessary for ass rape.”

    How about the fact that this is bullshit. The age of consent in my country britain is sixteen and has been for a very long time. I am sick of this arrogant attitude that just because country X has age of consent Y that this is a holy ring-pass-not and every one else automatically follows this view. They don’t you know!
    These viewpoints must be challenged, if someone has the right to advocate raising or keeping the status quo of AOC other people have to be allowed to advocate lowering or abolishing.
    That is the point of this article. By banning websites they have demonstrated that they are simply too lazy too construct counter-arguments.
    So yes the whole of great britain advocates gay sex at sixteen. Even the BNP have decided to leave this alone.
    GL can be easily dismissed because he is old and has a beard and a criminal record. Dismissing an entire country might prove more difficult.

  42. Gideon Says:

    A society that condones homosexuality simply on the flimsy excuse that it is “consensual” has no business condemning anyone, even Leonard, for their views. I dare say that if adult human beings fully understood what it was they were partaking in by doing gay sex, it would be counted as the same kind of perverse atrocity that kiddie-diddling is.

    It is hypocrisy and fascism of the first order, deleting websites that don’t agree with one’s opinions. I noticed a good number of self-righteous and uninformed opinions on this thread. They think that labeling someone as “sick” somehow makes those same accountable for their actions. How is a sick person accountable for anything? Labels are easy to use and they are a way of silencing critique. Many are ready to hang Leonard, yet how many of these clandestinely view kiddie porn or engage in ‘consensual’ perversions, such as those that homosexuals engage in? How many bounce their daughters/sons on their knees for an inappropriate amount of time and get a thrill doing it? Maybe catch a flash of nakedness, now and then, from their progeny and not feel a little ‘funny’?

    Society, overall, is inherently evil and self-absorbed. World leaders engage in acts of promiscuity and perversion and the world winks at it. Some old pervert diddles a couple of youngsters [….] and everyone goes for a rope… because, this is a guy they CAN get to! Maybe it even provides them with a way to exorcise their own demons, their own guilt?

    We have the world we have, because, it’s all we deserve. Besides, what else would one expect from a world populated by upright apes?

    • marcellous Says:

      This is a very odd comment. I disagree with it. It reminds me of the Dickensian “dnf” mother: the Calvinist who did not believe herself to be one of the elect.

    • marcellous Says:

      Someone calling themselves Dominic from Denton Texas has left the following three comments:


      You piece of putrescent trash.
      You have your nerve comparing yourself and your fellow sex fiends to the Martyrs of Holy Mother Church,who were tortured,mutilated,and killed for their Faith in Jesus
      Your arrogance is beyond reality.
      Your concept of ‘love’ never gets past how you want to violate your victims, and be allowed by law to get away with it,once youv’e somehow managed to legislate this garbage into legality.

      I am a victim of 3 pedophile violations,from ages 7 to 1o,and it ruined my life.
      I cannot trust,I cannot have a normal life because of animals like you,and i will continue attacking your kind until either you all pass away,or someone rounds you all up and finds a solution.
      I hope that you and everyone like you winds up in a camp someplace,segregated away from the rest of humankind,where you can no longer spread your poisons.


      Anyone that defends pedophilia,for whatever reason,should be considered a supporter of the practice,and lumped with the actual offenders.
      They are aiding and abetting a crime of rape.


      We have the world we have because of SIN.
      Because people like Geoffrey Leonard make the choice to offend,to indulge their filthy vices,instead of praying to God Almighty for cleansing,and for absolution.
      they are victims in a way too,because they have been convinced by people like you that there is no God,no ultimate authority,to which they will have to be accountable for their actions.

      In any case,a person that willingly offends against a child in this fashion has damned themselves according to Holy Scripture.
      That is all that matters.
      And all the humanistic,secular,and psychological doubletalk you can come up with will NEVER alter that.

  43. thinker Says:

    Here’s my thoughts on the topic:

    1. Geoff spins out of control on occasion (and law savvy), and is therefore a dangerous person when around minors (who are more likely to submit when threatened) – with this mind I believe it is wise for him to be added to the “Australian Paedophile-Sex Offender Registry”.

    2. I think Geoff’s strongly held belief that there should be no age in which a person is too young to give their consent for sex (no Age of Consent), is flawed – We should take the lead from nature, and so make puberty a guide to what the Age of Consent should be (which 16 years old covers the majority of people). Before such an age its an abuse of the respect children extend to adults. Adults need, and the majority do, exercise self-control (don’t abuse then in any way). Those who don’t should work on changing their beliefs to respect young peoples’ special place in society (young people are entrusted by nature with society’s long term future). If they’re viewed as livestock (as they were in the past), it gives opportunities for some adults abuse them in many ways (consider the darker tones in the movie “Oliver Twist!”).

    3. How a victim of a pedophile is impacted by the event, would be influenced by their beliefs, their friends beliefs and their society’s beliefs (I’m not talking about religious beliefs, but beliefs about their reality) . Whilst an adult can readily adjust their beliefs about a bad situation, its a lot harder for a minor which typically locks the experience away from their memory to protect the beliefs they have (and that help them progress) from being tainted. That’s not to say the effects of such events don’t take a toll on their psychology. With this in mind, at an early age of adulthood, one needs to admit that they had a bad experience in the past and that its in the past – learn from it and move on (a trusted and qualified therapist is helpful to assist in this). Otherwise, it could become an obsession that will impact your whole life (brewing hate or fear) – consider the substantial psychological benefit of victims get by forgiving their offenders’ (but the offender should still be prosecuted, to prevent further transgressions). Some disturbing, but useful movies to get your head around the subject being “Mysterious Skin”, and how various individuals react in pedophile scenes from “Butterfly Effect”.

    4. Pedophile Haters – One thing I notice is that those who “hate” pedophiles (as opposed from objectively seeing and dealing with them as a problem for society), seem to have such aggression that I wonder if they are abusing others in their life (such as their children or partners). Hate and anger (just like fear) can easily multiply to target areas which they have no issue with. Just as a person’s fear can quickly expand from one phobia to another, so too can anger and hate. For that reason i think its important that everyone have an understanding of basic psychology, so they can prevent themselves from spinning out of control.

    • marcellous Says:

      1.Someone called “Dominic” left the following reply:

      Typical middle=of =the =road wooly thinking.
      Offenders of all types get off far too easily,especially sexual offenders.
      ‘Oh,let’s try and understand them”,instead of putting them in their rightful place:a shallow grave in a potter’s field someplace.
      We tolerta efilth as a cultural more’ now.and more’s the pity,because our offspring will be the one’s that pay for your kind of fuzzy,feelgood lack of moral fortitude.

      Hardly seems to have read or understood thinker’s comment at all.

      2. @ thinker: I guess GL is now on some kind of sex-offender register because of his latest convictions which are the subject of this post. I think that is very much a case of better safe than sorry. Mr Leonard might be a bit scary to a minor I doubt if he would be likely to threaten any minor into submission. The closest there is to any such claim is the original statement by the elder of the two brothers back in 1989 that he became aware that GL was attracted to his younger brother and that he continued having sex with GL on the condition that GL leave his younger brother alone.

  44. Tyler Says:

    Go Geoffrey, we still believe in you!

    • marcellous Says:

      Before dominic and his like spring in, I’m letting this through as a joke because I’m aware GL, who is not a fictional person, has something of a cult following on the internets as a kind of comic monster. Some English backpackers even went up to his place and met him, though that particular clip (part of their tourist videos) has fallen beyond my powers of retrieval.

  45. who cares Says:

    Where ever you live in this world we have sick and twisted people and the more we sit here and challenge or talk about it or them, we get awareness out which is good but to sit here and keep talking about some crazy fruit loop gets old and creates ones own insanity. Just go over to the neighbors house and put up a sign in there yard that says i live next to a pedophile or whatever but 6 years later forget about this guy already or create a trap for him like Chris Hanson’s show to catch a predator and be done with it, just like a serial killer, they want the attention and fame for there actions but once its over its done. Or hey go up to this GL and threaten him back, since he is such a church goer or whatever, tell him to go dig up his mother and stick the longest bone up his arse and go f himself but just stop playing into his desires and need for attention.

    • marcellous Says:


      GL self-published books which practically no-one read. (They have since resurfaced on the net, if you fossick around for them.) It was the reaction to him, starting with the drama from anxiety about him at St Andrew’s Cathedral and then leading on to the media’s desire for a story and the current affairs TV program curbside confrontation which led to any real notoriety he has had. The actual child abuse he committed, at least which led to a conviction, was now over twenty years ago. I doubt if he poses any real threat to any actual child, so I don’t even think there is any point in one of those AFP officers pretending to be a lad on the internet to try to entrap him.

  46. Josh Says:

    How can using a Freudian theory justify the suffering that you have caused upon young children and the vulnerable. Your argument is that you should not hinder the development of love? Well you actions have more than likely hindered the victims ability to trust, maintain relationships and maintain a healthy mental state. You are a dirty lustful old bastard that wants to have sex with young children. I might want to have sex with Kelly Brook, but do you think your Freudian argument would stand up in court because i raped her? The reason we have morals and have views on deviancy is so that everyone has the right to live there own life. A 5 year old boy has not concept of love, nor has his body matured enough to experience sexual activity. He also has not yet mentally fully matured and this experience could very well damage his development. But you don’t give a shit Leonard because you wanted some sexual excitement….keep it in your pants you [redacted].

  47. Charles Morrissey Says:

    Which of Leonard’s books did A Current Affair cite?

    Was the comment pertaining to adults encouraging boys with “a certain amount of force” made by Leonard as Leonard, or was it made by one of Leonard’s fictional characters? In its original context, is the comment sincere, or is it intended as ironic?

    • marcellous Says:

      I don’t know, Charles. That sounds like something ironic but by now I cannot even remember ACA citing any book in particular.

      • Charles Morrissey Says:

        Is it from Punished for Love? That seems to be the book that’s generated the most controversy.

        ACA quoted the following material but didn’t mention specific sources:

        1. “Man/boy love is a perfectly natural phenomenon and is potentially a considerable benefit to both sides.”
        2. “I think it can be an extremely beautiful and rewarding experience for both parties and one of the great experiences of life.”
        3. “A child’s sexuality has to be encouraged. A child needs encouragement and even perhaps a certain amount of force. Am I suggesting brutal rape? Well no, but what I am suggesting is that adults have a duty to give a very strong lead.”

      • marcellous Says:

        Well, that doesn’t sound ironic at all but it is typical of Leonard’s out-on-a-limbness. Some of his books have surfaced electronically on the net from time to time but I cannot track down Punished at this time. That’s a relief really because I should warn you that it may well be an offence to access on the internet any of the books which contain the child abuse material for which GL was convicted of using the internet to publish.

  48. suzie wong Says:

    This man is mentally ill with no insight into his compulsion. It is a white matter (connects dendrites in the brain) issue with ocd behavoiral components. It is a acquired brain injury. As psychiatric patients have no insight so it is with pedophiles. Also many have “alters” the person who offends.A true split personality who often consulted by the public “nice man” facilitating the pedophile. Same person. To have lived like this for months is insane but this is their normal. A sane person would seek treatment to cease the double life promptly. Further the pedophile may be making pedophiles of the victims, as their white matter is damaged permanently, by trying to make sense @ 12 mths,3 or 4 y.o. of nice man hurt me. will all other adult hurt me,which will. Adult find this character analyse vexing, a child,maybe brain damage.

  49. Wilber Says:

    I was involved in a discussion group at one time open to everyone. A convicted pedophile started to attend. On almost all topics he was quite rational, and intelligent. But when the topic of age of consent was raised (or even hinted at), he went wild. Attacking whoever raised the topic and using personal attacks, tried to stop any frank discussion on the topic. His emotions took over in what appeared to be driven by his subconscious – like a spoilt child, when they don’t get what they want, having a tantrum. I wondered why he reached so strangely on this topic alone. I may come down to two reasons:
    1. His time spent in jail, screwed with his mind regarding the topic, or
    2. His sexual deeds were more about power – he was getting off controlling minors, who hadn’t reached a point in their life where they start to question adults’ motives, and didn’t understand how sex drive can color an adult’s intentions. I think that in his case at least, the belief that he had unbridled power over minors, was crystalised when he acted on it (and may have gotten away with it on numerous occasions prior to being caught). Now it’s difficult for a parent to fix a spoilt child’s beliefs, that are a result of them getting everything they ask for, when they have close supervision by their parents (just watch some episodes of the SuperNanny), how much harder would it be to reform an adult pedophile who has no such intense and controlling supervision.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: