Legal Beagle: Think it possible that you may be mistaken
First ←Older Page 1 … 12 13 14 15 16 Newer→ Last
Joe Wylie, in reply to
… a chuckle from the host (on Newstalk ZB).
The mirthless talkback laugh, somewhere between a hiccup and a death-rattle.
Kumara Republic, in reply to
I’m not quite sure what your point is either – or if you even have one, beyond being weirdly niggly – but I don’t consider trout or cow acceptable descriptions of women in public life.
Craig Ranapia, in reply to
But the reason that statement eventually came was external pressure. The earnest entreaties Graeme imagines would not have got far, if only because the station seemed incapable of dealing with them.
And let’s cash the reality check here: Even if management had read Willie Jackson the riot act six days a week and twice on Sunday, wasn’t someone who gave Clint Rickards an unchallenged platform to call Louise Nicholas a mentally unstable stalker and serial perjurer a extremely high risk for landing Radio Live in exactly this kind of shit soup? Graeme, can you think it possible that you're extremely naive if you think “earnest entreaties” – as opposed to real and lasting practical consequences – were going to convince Jackson to ixnay the slut-shaming of rape victims?
Chuck Bird, in reply to
Simon, you are typical of the left just like Cunliffe - attack the messenger on an unrelated topic.
My point is that too many on the left are out and out hypocrites. When MP on the right act badly they have to resign. Look at the attitude of Labour when it came to defending Dirty Darren Hughes serial sexual predator and let us not forget Benson-Peep..
Don't wholly disagree - but that's not the topic here - why not just tweet it to your followers?
john Drinnan, in reply to
Otherwise it just looks like you're desperate for attention
I think there is a fair bit of missing the point here. Graeme has explained why he is agin advertising boycotts in principle. He has then rambled on a bit about things you could do instead of instigating a boycott. The fact that those things may or may not be effective takes nothing away from the primary point he is making.
I will put words in his mouth and suggest he doesn't think ends justify means. I would hope other don't also (Marxists aside, obviously).
The issue of rape is off the table at Radio Live. It isn’t much of a leap to suggest that the issue of rape could be off the table everywhere if the events that led to its silence on Radio Live are allowed to flourish. And who knows what issue may suffer the same fate next? Rape, like most issues can be a multi-faceted affair. Attempting to shoehorn it into a one-dimension issue just leads to deafening silence as the Radio Live furore has shown.
Without doubt, trying to change an opposing point of view is more in keeping with the spirit of free speech (and far more productive to boot) than trying to silence it.
Danielle, in reply to
Rape, like most issues can be a multi-faceted affair.
Oh, DO go on. I'm all ears.
Chris Waugh, in reply to
the events that led to its silence on Radio Live
But what, precisely, led to its silence on Radio Live? Two men lost their radio show, but they're still free to discuss whatever they like in any other forum or medium. Nobody stopped Radio Live allowing its presenters, guests or callers from discussing rape - advertisers withdrew their ads because they didn't want to be associated with those two men and their behaviour. Radio Live could allow its presenters, guests and callers to continue discussing rape if they wanted to. They could continue to allow rape apology, or they could allow any other view of these issues to be broadcast. If Radio Live has gone silent on rape, then that is Radio Live's choice.
How many times does this have to be said? Neither Willie Jackson nor John Tamihere nor Radio Live has been silenced.
Stephen Judd, in reply to
I will put words in his mouth and suggest he doesn’t think ends justify means. I would hope other don’t also (Marxists aside, obviously).
Given a desirable end and innocuous means, there's no problem. There is no clear principle here, only a question of where the compromises are. Again, Andrew Geddis laid it out beautifully upthread.
If anyone is missing the point it's people who think defending talkback jocks' right to give shit to young women about whether they deserve to be raped is a good metaphorical hill to die on.
And if we must have these stupid rhetorical "who agrees to extreme proposition X" type questions, who agrees that all broadcasters must be allowed to say whatever they like, under every circumstance, without criticism? See ? It's so easy to come up with these ever so challenging, provocative, edgy questions, but what is the point?
/me goes off to mow the lawn and mutter exasperatedly.
A O, in reply to
Wille and JT should be reprimanded for asking stupid and inappropriate questions but whether they actually stated “ they condone rape and the actions of rapists” or anything anywhere near to this is another matter altogether. I’ve yet to see any evidence that shows that they did just that.
Stephen Judd, in reply to
Check out the transcript towards the end of this article and get back to us. There was more, but Radio Live has removed all legit recordings.
A O, in reply to
Support, education, prevention, law enforcement, legalities, gender affairs...just to name a few. How many of these get an airing?
Jackie Clark, in reply to
Rape is not a multi faceted affair. Take it from one who knows my own story, and the stories of countless other women (and men). It is really very simple. Whenever you heap scorn and implied blame on a person around their rape, what you are doing is adding to the feelings they already have, magnified by 1000. Feelings that are perpetuated continually, in every way, by our society. Girls, in particular, are warned from a very early age about behaviours that will prevent rape/harm, and behaviours that will lead to rape/harm. We all know at a very young age how to keep ourselves “safe”. Except that there is no keeping safe. All the long skirts, and abstemiousness in the world hasn’t led us to a place of safety. So when you question what a girl was wearing, or how much she had drunk, or why she was at that party? You are telling her, very explicitly, that it was her own actions that led to her misfortune. And you are lying to her. Girls are lied to over and over and over again. JT and Willy needed to be censured because if they had gotten away with what they did? That would have been tantamount to RadioLive saying “We agree with how you handled this young woman.” And every time that message is sent, every time we condone such words, such actions, what we are doing is making it harder and harder for people who have been raped to come forward, to tell their stories. We are silencing them, effectively, and often for life. Can you imagine living with that pain your entire life? I can’t for the life of me figure out how to explain to people why rape is not multifaceted. How plain and simple an assault it is on someone’s power, their very core of being, their belief in themselves. What an act of hate it is. Hate and disrespect. I used to believe that some girls asked for it, because I was one of those girls. I thought I had been very silly, and put myself in stupid situations. I had not. The person/people at fault are those who seek to do harm in the most destroying way they know. So I have no sympathy with the "free speech" argument, in any way, shape or form. Words damage, as much as deed. We have to seek to protect those who most need it, not further damage them.
A O, in reply to
@ Chris Waugh - rape is no longer up for discussion on Radio Live. There's a whole lot of ways to look at this but that's the key one.
@ Stephen Judd - I guess I'm one of the few people that actually listened to the show, albeit it was too cringe-worthy to listen in its entirety Nonetheless, I still see no evidence that they condone rape or rapists - just a lot of coloured interpretation. .
Danielle, in reply to
So you're blaming... people who were saying "we want to talk about this differently" RATHER than the people at Radio Live who point-blank *refused* to talk about it differently?
That's it. I am apparently through the fucking looking-glass in this thread now.
Craig Ranapia, in reply to
I guess I’m one of the few people that actually listened to the show, albeit it was too cringe-worthy to listen in its entirety Nonetheless, I still see no evidence that they condone rape or rapists – just a lot of coloured interpretation.
Oh, fuck off. I listened to the audio of Amy’s call, and more than once – not least because I couldn’t believe they’d asked her when she lost her virginity. That’s not “coloured interpretation” but a simple matter of fact. They also asked her “how free and easy are you kids [i.e. young women who were assaulted while functionally unconscious] these days”. Again, fact not opinion. Whether you believe me or not, I really wanted to give those two the benefit of the doubt and I don’t throw around a phrase like “rape apologist” casually.
While I don’t have a tone police badge or moderating privileges anywhere hereabout except (to a limited extent) on my own posts, its really not smart to accuse others of speaking in bad faith. You're being massively condescending towards people who have considered what was said in great detail over several weeks, now. And speaking on my own account, to an extent that's been astonishingly unpleasant.
Please Jackie, don’t assume that scorn (or blame) is being heaped on anyone just for having an approach that may differ from your own. We’re all educated (if indeed we have responsible parents) on the multitude of dangers that life may throw at us. This education can differ between boys and girls but nonetheless most of us are fortunate enough to receive the insight. The point is that the world is not a safe place for anyone, arguably more so for women than men, but we equip our children the best we can despite knowing that it may never be enough.
Bottom line is that like most issues, there are many angles here that can be discussed – the trick is to do so in a manner that’s as respectful and as sensitive as possible. Respect and understanding opens many doors.
What I am saying Danielle is basically one of the core themes of this thread – that allowing for all points of view is far more in the spirit of free speech than attempting to silence opposing views. There’s more than one approach that can be taken around this issue…
@ Craig Ranapia
Craig, they asked some seriously inappropriate questions that much is true. Their whole interview/show was a walking disaster and I don’t begrudge what’s befallen them whatsoever, except for one thing – neither stated that they condone rape or the actions of rapists.
BenWilson, in reply to
If anyone is missing the point it’s people who think defending talkback jocks’ right to give shit to young women about whether they deserve to be raped is a good metaphorical hill to die on.
Indeed. It's been a wake up call for me about how some people prioritize their values, and just what is actually important to me.
Lucy Telfar Barnard, in reply to
neither stated that they condone rape or the actions of rapists.
I don’t think you understand what victim-blaming is.
They didn’t say “we condone rape and the actions of rapists”. They said [things that mean they condone rape and the actions of rapists].
You can’t blame rape victims for their rape without saying that it’s [at least partly] their fault. If it’s [at least partly] their fault, it’s not all the rapists fault. If it’s not all the rapists fault, then it’s not always the rapist’s fault. If it’s not always the rapist’s fault, there are some situations in which rape is acceptable. If you believe there are some situations in which rape is acceptable, then you condone rape.
Hey, AO. You want to answer my question from a couple of pages back? Who is speaking up for the young women in this case? Why are you so concerned about free speech, and not concerned about a culture that means young women are too afraid to make a complaint to police, let alone to speak publicly about what had happened to them. Where is your outrage about _that_?
Che Tibby, in reply to
I could revise downwards once somebody explains to me what it was even supposed to mean.
traditionally it means 'unhappy middle aged woman, especially with drinking problem".
i've always associated it with the concomitant down-turned mouth.
make of that what you will.
oh, and for the record. am on record thinking that radio nz did exactly the right thing.
if jt and willie wanted to make a positive contribution to this debate, they should have just STFU and let smart people do it.
free speak != saying any damn stupid thing that comes out of your half-baked mind. it means not getting jailed for speaking truth to power.
A O, in reply to
@Lucy Telfar Barnard
"I don’t think you understand what victim-blaming is.
They didn’t say “we condone rape and the actions of rapists”. They said [things that mean they condone rape and the actions of rapists]. “
What they said and what they’ve been interpreted as saying are two different things. What matters the most is the actual evidence of their actions and not interpretations thereof.
“You can’t blame rape victims for their rape without saying that it’s [at least partly] their fault. “
Again, a discussion can be held without needing to blame anyone.
Post your response…
This topic is closed.