Speaker by Various Artists

Read Post

Speaker: Not even a statistic

124 Responses

First ←Older Page 1 2 3 4 5 Newer→ Last

  • Sofie Bribiesca, in reply to Paul Campbell,

    so close to an election I bet as soon as Rodney made his suggestion she got a call from NP head office.

    YUk yuk and yuk. The head office will only be soiling their name if they would do that. It makes a mockery of anything she says now.

    here and there. • Since Nov 2007 • 6796 posts Report Reply

  • Craig Ranapia, in reply to Paul Campbell,

    I can see why Maggie Barry seems unlikely to use her parliamentary privilege here, so close to an election I bet as soon as Rodney made his suggestion she got a call from NP head office.

    Oh, go away Paul. Perhaps Barry doesn’t take ethical advice from that particular corner (who would?), especially in the form of a pretty obnoxious attempt to co-opt her harassment in one hell of a patronising concern troll of a column? Which, when you get down to it, is just dick privilege in action.

    And perhaps, Paul, #notallmen can pay #yesallwomen the baseline respect of not denying them agency over their own actions.

    YUk yuk and yuk. The head office will only be soiling their name if they would do that. It makes a mockery of anything she says now.

    I’m going to regret asking this, but why? If Rodders knew who this guy was when he was in Parliament why didn’t he do the naming and shaming? Why doesn’t he do it now – apart from the simple reality that The Herald on Sunday wouldn’t publish it, and his column would be dumped like a hot turd if he did it anywhere else and was convicted of breaching name suppression?

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

  • Kumara Republic, in reply to Craig Ranapia,

    Google pretty much does all the explaining in this case. There seems to be a pattern with these 'prominent public figures' - that they can effectively buy their name suppression with a fat chequebook.

    The southernmost capital … • Since Nov 2006 • 5445 posts Report Reply

  • Craig Ranapia, in reply to Kumara Republic,

    There seems to be a pattern with these ‘prominent public figures’ – that they can effectively buy their name suppression with a fat chequebook.

    Well, let’s have that discussion without buying into bullshit like this:

    Forget Rolf Harris, Maggie. He’s behind bars. Do the right thing and name this self-confessed offender in Parliament. Do what Parliamentary privilege allows: make right what our justice system got wrong.

    Name the sexual predator under privilege and enable other possible victims to come forward. Some of your colleagues know who he is. Ask them. Or me.

    You, Maggie, can do what no other New Zealander can do: you can name him.

    Where the fuck does Rodney Hide get off telling any harassment/abuse victim to shut up about their own experience, and move on to taking about what HE deems important in a manner HE dictates?

    The ODT described that column as “goading” Barry. I’d just call it “trolling” and guys, we’ve just got to stop it. To coin a phrase, it’s not OK to put the responsibility for jamming abuse culture on victims. It's not OK for us to be telling #yesallwomen what they should talk about, and when and how. It's not OK for anyone to co-opt people brave enough to talk about their experience of abuse and harassment into their own political agendas. Not ever. Not even a little bit.

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

  • Rosemary McDonald,

    So, if a person is convicted of rape/sexual assault, and the victim demands that the rapist lose any right to name suppression, then name suppression should be automatically lifted.

    Regardless of what the wriggly arsed, slimy, bottom- feeding, scum- sucking lawyers demand, or what the Judge (who was formerly a lawyer) decides?

    That would go a wee bit towards changing the culture.

    Waikato, or on the road • Since Apr 2014 • 1346 posts Report Reply

  • Kumara Republic, in reply to Craig Ranapia,

    The perk-buster turned perk-feeder doesn't seem to realise that parliamentary privilege might not actually trump contempt of court.

    All the same, it wasn’t all that long ago that Martin Devlin was in court for various misdemeanours. Before his name was revealed, John Campbell, Simon Dallow, and Mike McRoberts were all rumoured to be the “46-year-old in court”.

    The southernmost capital … • Since Nov 2006 • 5445 posts Report Reply

  • Sofie Bribiesca, in reply to Craig Ranapia,

    If Rodders knew who this guy was when he was in Parliament why didn’t he do the naming and shaming?

    Oh yes I agree, my point being without naming the dickwad was if National gave her direction if she wanted to name under priviledge it would make mockery of the whole thing. I'm disgusted he got away with not being named for so long.

    here and there. • Since Nov 2007 • 6796 posts Report Reply

  • Craig Ranapia, in reply to Sofie Bribiesca,

    Ah, thanks for the clarification Sofie! Makes a lot more sense than my initial read.

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

  • Jason Kemp, in reply to Craig Ranapia,

    Rodney Hide left parliament in 2011 before the results of the Court of Appeal and the other legal actions were complete.

    Auckland • Since Nov 2006 • 368 posts Report Reply

  • Sofie Bribiesca,

    Ah, thanks for the clarification Sofie! Makes a lot more sense than my initial read.

    I just don't understand why people will sit amongst others knowing their history and carry on like it isn't important to address. If it's condoned with prominent people its condoned, period.
    I asked my friend at our local dairy/cafe one day if he had noticed the customer because he was outside talking to us. He said yes and carried on the conversation. I then heard him say to said person, "I know you are there I'm busy". After he had finished our conversation (taking some minutes) he went and served the man begrudgingly . As a manager I would advise to serve customers first and so when he returned I asked why he didn't want to serve him, it was blatantly obvious. He said the man had recently returned from jail. He called him a kiddy fuker.He felt only disgust which was why he didn't want to serve him. I then understood. It needs to be discussed at every level.

    here and there. • Since Nov 2007 • 6796 posts Report Reply

  • Sofie Bribiesca, in reply to Jason Kemp,

    This was obviously not a one off incident ,if you read between the lines.

    here and there. • Since Nov 2007 • 6796 posts Report Reply

  • Jason Kemp,

    Thanks to Katrina, Emma and the other brave women here who have shared their stories. It is distressing to hear their experiences of the legal system. As a law graduate(a very long time ago) I am mortified that the legal system and the wider culture is still so obviously hostile to victims.

    The prominent Otago man case referred to earlier is an example of a privileged person buying name suppression. Very few people have the resources to overturn a conviction by going to the Court of Appeal and then getting referred back to District Court for a discharge without conviction AND permanent name suppression.

    I’m shocked and dismayed that conversations I had at university in the 70’s and 80’s are being repeated 40 years later. I thought we had moved on as a society.

    I hope we are not giving up on the idea of changing culture for the better. Surely there are some standards of behaviour that we as a society can aspire to.

    I’m also thinking of a recent example of sexism in the media. I also don’t want to sidetrack the conversation but it seems to me that these topics are part of a larger continuum.

    In that example viewers seem to be letting Paul Henry “off the hook” because they expect a lower standard of behaviour from him. I don’t think that is OK.

    If rape culture is about entitlement then Paul Henry needs to be called out too.

    I looked up the code of ethics for Media Works and it is all about business dealings none of it is about respecting other people.

    The Broadcasting Standards Authority programme allows for complaints on several grounds for example but it does seem very vague.

    Good taste and decency.
    Fairness
    Discrimination and denigration

    And a number of other elements but the difficulty is that Joe Public seems most of these items as a matter of opinion.

    Has there been any research on the “Its not OK” campaign in whether it has been successful in changing community attitudes towards family violence ?

    I hope so and I hope that all of us can change NZ culture for the better.

    Auckland • Since Nov 2006 • 368 posts Report Reply

  • Rosemary McDonald, in reply to Sofie Bribiesca,

    My kids were outside playing on our fenced suburban section. The dog barked...passerby alert. And bugger me, there's Fred (not his real name) strolling on past. Now I knew Fred...in the professional sense, when he was under strict parole conditions after being convicted of raping a nine year old girl...who of course had asked for it.

    The last I had heard of Fred( about three years earlier) was a newspaper report of him being convicted of raping a three year old boy. Fred's MO was to befriend a solo mother and get into the kids.

    So, I phoned the local constabulary...bless them... gave Fred's name and suggested the officer looked him up on the database. " What would you do if he was walking down your street.", I asked. " find out where he is hanging out and warn them!"..."Errr...you're the cop, you warn them".

    You can see where this is going.

    So I did. And he moved on....to the local dump/recycing depot. More kids...again I intervened.....busy body me...told the site manager, fended off his attack on my character by telling him if ANYTHING happened to a child after me warning him...then I would make damn sure everyone knew he had been warned.

    Next time, he was chatting with kids in the local shopping centre. More of Rosemary sticking her beak in...but you know what????

    I don't give a shit what anyone thinks.

    Predators like him must be kept off the streets, or have a sign on their foreheads...something...because once we know who these people are....we can at least have a chance of keeping children safe.

    Rest easy.

    Fred's dead.

    Waikato, or on the road • Since Apr 2014 • 1346 posts Report Reply

  • Paul Campbell, in reply to Craig Ranapia,

    Oh, go away Paul. Perhaps Barry doesn’t take ethical advice from that particular corner (who would?), especially in the form of a pretty obnoxious attempt to co-opt her harassment in one hell of a patronising concern troll of a column? Which, when you get down to it, is just dick privilege in action.

    Craig - this is an interesting case in that it's hard to talk about the subtlety of what Rodney's doing here - especially so close to an election - you're right, he's trying to goad Maggie to do something, something that IMHO she might want to do personally but her party likely doesn't want her to do (for reasons that we can't talk about here because of the past history of the person who's identity is being suppressed) - it's a particularly interesting game to play so close to an election - of course he could equally ask any opposition MP to do the same thing, but he hasn't.

    I'm not naive enough to think that think Rodney has pure motives here (is it revenge for past slights? an attempt to remain relevant? his need to get on the radio every so often? who knows)

    The real story though isn't Rodney - it's that the system has conspired to protect this horrible man - and that's rape culture handed down from the highest parts of our judiciary to protect the good old boys

    Dunedin • Since Nov 2006 • 2623 posts Report Reply

  • Rosemary McDonald, in reply to ,

    I think I failed to make myself clear....

    What I mean't to say was, "** if a person is convicted** of rape/sexual assault, and the victim demands that the rapist lose any right to name suppression, then name suppression should be automatically lifted."

    I was not speaking about some scrote from Central Otago.

    I was making a rather pathetic attempt to get back to the topic of Rape Culture in NZ, and ways of perhaps shifting the balance so that at least some of the _power_ is in the hands of the victim.

    Rather than a pitch fork.

    Waikato, or on the road • Since Apr 2014 • 1346 posts Report Reply

  • Rob Stowell,

    Thank you Katarina. And Emma, Jackie – everyone who is opening the door on this national skeleton-in-the-closet.
    There are some nasty elements in our kiwi "blokiness". “Man up” people say. And “don’t be a blouse.” “Whadarrya!”
    There’s arrogance and entitlement. And there’s fear, too. Being singled out for group contempt -especially as a teen – can be terrifying. And fear is surely a big part of rape culture.
    We’ve got a long way to go. Big thanks for starting these conversations which are surely steps in the right direction.

    Whakaraupo • Since Nov 2006 • 2110 posts Report Reply

  • Craig Ranapia,

    Shut up Rodney. (No I’m notgoing to link, but he’s at it again and people wonder why victims of sexual assault, abuse and harassment don't report? Look in the mirror, Rodders.)

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

  • Jason Kemp, in reply to Craig Ranapia,

    I disagree with Rodney on most things but surely his opening sentence and second paragraph are positives in the light of the current discussion. From todays Herald.

    Rodney says..

    "I have reluctantly concluded that New Zealand does suffer a rape culture.

    It’s not an “all men are rapists” and “I am sorry for being a man” type of thing. Rather, it’s the way men can commit sex crimes and get away with it. The system works to protect the privileged and powerful."

    and later Rodney again says

    "And there’s our rape culture. Our system protects the offender and puts women at risk. “

    You may disagree but it does sound like progress. If we make any discussion on this topic an absolute minefield to talk about then no one will.

    Also in the Herald today Indecent act man calls in lawyers

    Auckland • Since Nov 2006 • 368 posts Report Reply

  • Sofie Bribiesca, in reply to Jason Kemp,

    disagree with Rodney on most things but surely his opening sentence and second paragraph are positives in the light of the current discussion. From todays Herald.

    Hey I can't stand the guy most of the time but I think in this instance his attempt to understand Rape Culture is a good start for Harold readers.Last week men couldn't accept an apology, this week Rodney tries. If at the end of the day we insist the word can only be spread a certain way, we will lose right there. I'd like to imagine that having a family and living outside the bubble for long enough now has given him a chance to grow up just a bit. Any attempt to bring this out to the public arena (and why not close to an Election) is a positive thing. Dam having to tread lightly for some Politicians. Show us the true colours.

    here and there. • Since Nov 2007 • 6796 posts Report Reply

  • Sofie Bribiesca, in reply to Jason Kemp,

    Also in the Herald today Indecent act man calls in lawyers

    I have only one thought for that man .....
    Diddums

    here and there. • Since Nov 2007 • 6796 posts Report Reply

  • Lucy Telfar Barnard, in reply to Rosemary McDonald,

    then where would YOU put the LINE?

    That is difficult, but I look to the approaches which position the line based on the age of the participants. If someone under 16 is with someone roughly the same age, given or take – one year? two years? a percentage of the age so that the age difference allowed increases as you age? – then there’s a whole lot less likelihood there’s any manipulation or exploitation going on.

    And Sofie, bang on. The piece quotes him as saying ""It has taken away all my livelihood ... Even with name suppression I got fired from a job because a guy had heard it was me," ...He believed he was unfairly targeted because he was a household name."

    This is so particularly frustrating because it's so obvious that the minimal consequences he suffered for his actions weren't enough to make him realise the magnitude of what he's done. He's complaining because he was fired because of what he'd done, and thinks he's been targeted because he's a household name rather than, I don't know... because he assaulted someone? Creep.

    Wellington • Since Nov 2006 • 585 posts Report Reply

  • Craig Ranapia, in reply to Jason Kemp,

    You may disagree but it does sound like progress. If we make any discussion on this topic an absolute minefield to talk about then no one will.

    Jason:

    With all due and sincere respect, Rodney could have made his points without trolling Maggie Barry whose harassment by Rolf Harris doesn’t actually put her under any special obligation to say or do shit. That’s not progress in my book, Jason. It’s just a more passive-aggressive version of what WhaleOil has done to Tania Billingsley. What ever Bob Jones, JT & Willie and Co. in the media line up to do to harassment and abuse victims (overwhelmingly women) every damn day. It’s just not OK, and frankly I don’t care what Rodney’s “intentions” are.

    Yes ALL men have actually got to learn that we’re not being very good allies when we’re privileging our own speech over (as Emma put it so well) the real experts here. Did Rodney actually stop for even a second and ask himself how Maggie Barry might feel about, in effect, being accused of complicity in every crime this person commits unless she stands up in Parliament and breeches name suppression? (It’s really easy to be brave when it’s other people facing the consequences, isn’t it Rodders?) Did he ever ask himself why Barry – like so many other women over decades – didn’t report her treatment by Harris to anyone?

    I don’t believe he did – and that’s rape culture too, folks. You never put responsibility for stopping abuse on victims, no matter how passive-aggressive or well intentioned you think you’re being about it.

    Any attempt to bring this out to the public arena (and why not close to an Election) is a positive thing. Dam having to tread lightly for some Politicians. Show us the true colours.

    Oh, you mean the politician who talked about her own sleazy harassment at the hands of Rolf Harris, which apparently gives Rodney Hide the right to troll her into breaching name suppression. That's the politician I'm talking about here, Sofie, and she's no less deserving of consideration than Tanya Billingsley, or Jackie Blue, or Sue Bradford and Georgina Beyer.

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

  • Jason Kemp, in reply to Craig Ranapia,

    Thanks Craig,

    I see where you are coming from. I just thought that the overall tone showed progress as there is a hint of an apology towards Maggie later in the column.

    Auckland • Since Nov 2006 • 368 posts Report Reply

  • Craig Ranapia,

    Jason:

    Thanks reciprocated -- I'm pissed off at those columns NOT even a little bit at everyone here who didn't agree with my read, but genuinely heard and respectfully engaged with it. That's progress.

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

  • Sofie Bribiesca, in reply to Craig Ranapia,

    Oh, you mean the politician who talked about her own sleazy harassment at the hands of Rolf Harris, which apparently gives Rodney Hide the right to troll her into breaching name suppression. That’s the politician I’m talking about here, Sofie,

    NO! I'm talking about a person who I don't like, don't like his writing, don't agree with him most of the time trying to come to terms with understanding what we have been yelling about for fucken ages. His words are his, whether you like them or not, is not justification to stop the conversation he is starting in public. People read the Herald.
    To suggest he ain't allowed to do it his way? Where is the manual? At least he's trying as ugly as it gets.. Barry is capable of telling him to shut up if she wishes. I've seen her tell Ardern to shut up. She has a mouth. She has brought the subject into the light. That may be too harsh for some but I'd be interested to see if we can get some real change from it all. Sorry Craig I disagree, and as a survivor I know how important it is to remain relevant right now. Just my pathetic opinion of course. Gnite.

    here and there. • Since Nov 2007 • 6796 posts Report Reply

First ←Older Page 1 2 3 4 5 Newer→ Last

Post your response…

Please sign in using your Public Address credentials…

Login

You may also create an account or retrieve your password.