Legal Beagle by Graeme Edgeler

Read Post

Legal Beagle: Think it possible that you may be mistaken

394 Responses

First ←Older Page 1 5 6 7 8 9 16 Newer→ Last

  • Danielle, in reply to john Drinnan,

    “rape enablers”

    I believe the term is "rape apologists".

    Charo World. Cuchi-cuchi!… • Since Nov 2006 • 3828 posts Report Reply

  • Graeme Edgeler, in reply to Danielle,

    I believe the term is “rape apologists”.

    That's another term. But you might want to direct your correction to people who were referring to others as "rape enablers", not those whom they accused.

    Wellington, New Zealand • Since Nov 2006 • 3207 posts Report Reply

  • Tom Beard, in reply to Danielle,

    “rape enablers”
    I believe the term is "rape apologists".

    If your first response to a young woman talking about her friends being raped is not empathy but "Wow, what a load of sluts you are", then yeah. Both terms would apply.

    Wellington • Since Nov 2006 • 1040 posts Report Reply

  • Craig Ranapia, in reply to Graeme Edgeler,

    That’s another term. But you might want to direct your correction to people who were referring to others as “rape enablers”, not those whom they accused.

    I've used both, and feel that they're perfectly accurate. If Messers Tamihere and Jackson wish to point a defamation lawyer in my direction, I'm not hard to find. But see above for why I'm not terribly inclined to sit still for a morals lecture from that quarter.

    North Shore, Auckland • Since Nov 2006 • 12370 posts Report Reply

  • Danielle, in reply to Graeme Edgeler,

    But you might want to direct your correction to people who were referring to others as “rape enablers”, not those whom they accused.

    You'll pardon me for being a little dubious about John Drinnan's characterisations of the people on Twitter who disagreed with him.

    Incidentally, I asked you a direct question a few pages back, Graeme, and I'd love to have an answer.

    Charo World. Cuchi-cuchi!… • Since Nov 2006 • 3828 posts Report Reply

  • Tim Hannah, in reply to john Drinnan,

    Agree with what? That there are rape apologists, enablers active in these conversations? Well, obviously there are. Rapists even. Are you claiming there aren't?

    Or were you called a rape enabler and are you now taking the opportunity to make sure your feels aren't ignored?

    Wellington • Since Jan 2007 • 228 posts Report Reply

  • john Drinnan, in reply to Danielle,

    Clearly they need a terminology update ...

    Auckland • Since Oct 2010 • 31 posts Report Reply

  • john Drinnan, in reply to Danielle,

    how do you mean Danielle?

    Auckland • Since Oct 2010 • 31 posts Report Reply

  • Danielle, in reply to john Drinnan,

    You characterised Gio's post on the matter as "triumphalist". I don't really trust your assessments of things, given past form.

    Charo World. Cuchi-cuchi!… • Since Nov 2006 • 3828 posts Report Reply

  • George Darroch,

    People who make excuses for an action (apologists): they enable that action.

    In this case, rape.

    WLG • Since Nov 2006 • 2264 posts Report Reply

  • A C Young, in reply to Graeme Edgeler,

    No obligation on anyone. I'm just asking.

    What you appear to be asking is that people who don't have a huge public platform stay quiet unless they can respond via the forms of communication that currently grant them far less power.

    Wellington • Since Feb 2011 • 35 posts Report Reply

  • john Drinnan, in reply to Danielle,

    A lot of the arguments -mostly directed at the once removed media angle rather than the cardinal issue of sexual violence – are built around black and white notions where the view is there is a correct way to deal with an issue and an incorrect way. This is pretty normal in torts class I suppose – but argument caught with idea that the people who do not fully agree have no understanding about sexual violence and the effects. Because they differ they are rape enablers, apologists or just the masses who just don’t get it. This is arrogant.

    Auckland • Since Oct 2010 • 31 posts Report Reply

  • john Drinnan, in reply to Danielle,

    oh okay... snap

    Auckland • Since Oct 2010 • 31 posts Report Reply

  • Graeme Edgeler, in reply to Danielle,

    OK Graeme, here’s a question. Do you believe that structural inequality – of the type that privileges some voices over others – exists?

    Sorry, missed it.

    [Assuming I know what the term means] Yes, I do.

    Wellington, New Zealand • Since Nov 2006 • 3207 posts Report Reply

  • Bart Janssen, in reply to john Drinnan,

    Clearly they need a terminology update …

    It's RAPE dammit.

    That's the bit where 17 and 18 year old rapists put their penises into the vaginas of 13 year old girls too drunk to resist.

    And you men are arguing about whether you have the correct word and whether a public protest about apologists and enablers took the correct form.

    Perhaps you should back up and start to think about how to stop your sons from raping so that we never ever have to have this discussion again.


    Ok I think this might have gotten to me a little.

    Auckland • Since Nov 2006 • 4458 posts Report Reply

  • Graeme Edgeler, in reply to A C Young,

    What you appear to be asking is that people who don’t have a huge public platform stay quiet unless they can respond via the forms of communication that currently grant them far less power.

    Well, I'm not. I'm expressing my concern about all forms of speech designed to silence others.

    Referring in a derogatory way about the appearance of a female politician may be one of the few ways someone with very little power can make a point about that politician, but I'm asking them to consider not doing it anyway.

    I would like to think such a person, even with very little power, could find another way to respond.

    Wellington, New Zealand • Since Nov 2006 • 3207 posts Report Reply

  • Danielle, in reply to Graeme Edgeler,

    Right. OK, cool. Now, given that you believe that it exists, why do you think it's appropriate that those whose voices aren't privileged need to "take their turn"? Because I think we've pretty clearly established that some people are taking much longer, louder turns than others when it comes to talking about rape.

    Charo World. Cuchi-cuchi!… • Since Nov 2006 • 3828 posts Report Reply

  • Tom Beard, in reply to Graeme Edgeler,

    I'm expressing my concern about all forms of speech designed to silence others.

    I wasn't aware that JT and Willie had had their vocal cords removed, or denied the same access to social media or blog comments that we all enjoy. I thought that this was about a radio station dropping some people who had abused the privilege that comes from a position of media power while bullying a young woman, because a public campaign made it clear to their advertisers that such behaviour was not what they wanted to hear.

    But of course, that doesn't fit into an abstract academic discourse about "all forms of speech" that treats all speech acts as equal.

    Wellington • Since Nov 2006 • 1040 posts Report Reply

  • Tom Beard, in reply to Bart Janssen,

    Ok I think this might have gotten to me a little.

    Shh, calm down, Bart. Then we can get back to the important topics, like what Rob Ford thinks of Bunnings.

    Wellington • Since Nov 2006 • 1040 posts Report Reply

  • Emma Hart, in reply to Danielle,

    Because I think we’ve pretty clearly established that some people are taking much longer, louder turns than others when it comes to talking about rape.

    And they're the people with the least skin in the game. So the discussion in its "natural" (ie socially-constructed) form supports the side of the argument with the least validity and the least experience. "Teaching women how to protect themselves from rape" (aw, bless 'em) is basically climate-change denial, except it's the dominant discourse.

    Every time we get close to changing the balance of the conversation, to getting our point, and the evidence, a tiny bit across, suddenly we're bullying, and shrieking of course, and apparently trying to shut down every comedian in Britain...

    Christchurch • Since Nov 2006 • 4651 posts Report Reply

  • Graeme Edgeler, in reply to Danielle,

    why do you think it’s appropriate that those whose voices aren’t privileged need to “take their turn”?

    Do you mean "wait their turn"? I never suggested they should. At least, I never intended to suggest that if I have. I absolutely endorse people who feel strongly about rape culture speaking out as much as possible.

    Why do I think you should allow others to have their turn? Well, wouldn't it suck if the majority decided that your speech was dangerous, and shouldn't be allowed? Because there are people (thankfully not a majority) who think exactly that.

    Wellington, New Zealand • Since Nov 2006 • 3207 posts Report Reply

  • Deborah, in reply to Graeme Edgeler,

    No obligation on anyone. I’m just asking.

    That's just a bit disingenuous. The way you're asking the questions makes it fairly clear that there's an answer that you think all reasonable people ought to give.

    But it's a little close to being a devil's advocate - just asking the questions, just asking for explanations, just engaging in an interesting theoretical exercise, and the girls who were raped, and the on-going enabling of rape culture and misogyny are just interesting data points.

    With respect, this is the stuff of our lives. It's not just an abstract exercise in thinking about political rights.

    It would be great if you could engage with the actual harm done by rape culture enablers like JT and Willie Jackson instead of insisting that it's all about free speech.

    Also, what Marama Davidson said.

    New Lynn • Since Nov 2006 • 1447 posts Report Reply

  • A C Young, in reply to Tom Beard,

    But of course, that doesn't fit into an abstract academic discourse about "all forms of speech" that treats all speech acts as equal.

    Except apparently making derogatory references to female politicians, that has to stop (I'm actually in agreement with this but don't see why this is any different than silencing rape victims by bullying them).

    Wellington • Since Feb 2011 • 35 posts Report Reply

  • john Drinnan, in reply to Bart Janssen,

    why aren;t people talking about the rape rather than how important it was to get rid of two people who were crap at handling a discussion about it - because its much simpler.

    Auckland • Since Oct 2010 • 31 posts Report Reply

  • A C Young, in reply to john Drinnan,

    People are doing both (and are donating to organisations designed to support rape victims).

    There were some large protests over the weekend talking about rape....

    It's not a binary prospect.

    Wellington • Since Feb 2011 • 35 posts Report Reply

First ←Older Page 1 5 6 7 8 9 16 Newer→ Last

Post your response…

This topic is closed.