Posts by Kracklite
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
OK, let's approach this in our new-found spirit of conciliation (until I have my next tipple).
There'll inevitably be some agreeing to differ.
There are two sides to every argument, and contributing causes for every event
Indeed, but the POV of those defending the activists is that one side is already out there and according to a poll a while back, 6/7 thought that the police were justified. Furious statements of support without balancing and rather ritual condemnations of terrorism are seen as part of a debate from a minority position that isn't getting the front page of the Dompost, not stand-alone statements.
Ureweras with weapons and live ammunition
Not all meat comes fom supermarkets. That may sound odd (especially to one as urbanised to me), but some people do still rountinely hunt, and they will be a bit cavalier about licences.
Now, my personal opinion, which actually, despite my often furious tone, I've not often brought up when defending them is that there were some people who were caught up in some macho fantasies of a secret army and indeed, there may well be substance... but then the SG... oh sh*t, I used a "but". Well, I'm in two minds and I want to see fair processes followed.
There's a line there between being a blowhard who likes shooty things and stockpiling and serious intent to form an armed fighting/terrorist force. The police thought that it was terrorism, the SG disagreed, the leaked evidence has now been presented as vindication of the police position. The Dompost wasn't exactly engaging constructively.
can't just expect to talk about one side of the argument without people perceiving you as unreasonably one-sided.
True, but as far as they're concerned, that horse bolted when the police went in in combat gear, when the word "terrorism" started being flung around and a whole herb escaped when the various fish and chip wrappers started going on about napalm and grenade launchers and plots to kill W. Too late, already.
The comparative absence of people shouting one-note recitals of their own political viewpoint is one of the things about politics in NZ that redeems it considerably over, for example, the USA.
Well, yes, somewhat. American debates are pretty awful with their toxicity and tribalism overriding any real discussion, but in comparison with the potential range of debate is big-endian versus small-endian (I'll support Bigend if its Hubertus... sorry, obscure joke). I want to see radical ideas aired coherently - not necessarily because I agree with them, but because, ahem "cognitive estrangement" is a good cold shower for the soul. If they're utterly alien to me, I want to think about why they should seem that way. My job has brought me into contact with people whose experiences have been very different from mine and I want to know how they got there (let me tell you sometime about one student I had once, a dyslexic man in his 40s with convictions for GBH and heroin possession and who is a really nice guy).
I want to see it reported to the Police Complaints Authority and I want to hear their response
Alas, for a lot of the older activists who remember the Springbok tour and the clowns incident, that sort of thing is suitable for a Tui billboard. Police investigating police is not something they care much about - certainly not after what came up during Dewar's trial, not when Greg O'Connor describes the Nicholas case as a "distraction" and "an isolated incident" and Bazley's report on a culture of misogyny and sexual abuse as a clean bill of health.
Well, at a weekend BBQ (which is what we liberals in leafy suburbs do... tho' Aro Valley is as mildewed as it is leafy), I was speaking to a woman whose flatmate was one of those arrested and she remarked sadly on the severe polarisation of viewpoints. I agreed with her tone and was somewhat surprised, considering how close the issue was to her personally. Another friend is much less, um, subtle.
Keith Locke was sadly like watching the little boy crying out about the real wolf while everybody laughed him off.
Alas, yes. Funnily enough, I'm likely to vote Green, not because I much like them (Global Climate Change initiatives good, Luddism not), but because I want that ginger in parliament.
You are assuming, I think, more foresight and co-ordination, and more uniformity of initial premises than is actually the case.
-
Fine, Finn, thanks. Likewise, I can see important points of agreement.
Alas, I have to go to work. I'll be back later.
-
because of people being arrested on the basis of quite specific evidence that they were preparing for violence. This is neither taking a balanced position or staying silent, so I think it's a pretty reasonable target for derision.
OK, late night and too much Scotch. That's my excuse, Your Honour. Now to address that.
I think that I've dealt with some of that above - balance is not between good and bad, but between bad and worse in the case of those remaining silent.
In the case of the noisy ones, well they're often dealing directly with the likes of Greg O'Connor and Ron Mark at one end and Redbaiter at the extreme and plenty of angry letter-writers in the dailies shouting out "Terrorism!". Admittedly, there's not a lot of space in the middle it seems, but to say that the hysteria is all on one side, which it is not, and therefore deserves flat-out dismissal is unfair and inaccurate.
People were arrested on specific and detailled evidence. The warrants were for firearms (not avocados) and those are the charges as they stand. Now 17 people were arrested for four guns. Something's missing here: napalm, grenade launchers, weapons of mass destruction.
What we have seen is one side of the case in which terrorism is alleged - the evidence has not been placed under examination and which the SG says cannot be used. It is not unfair to argue here that people are being blanket condemned in public with banner headlines on the basis of deeply flawed evidence.
I kknow that this sounds a bit like "I know something you don't", but here goes: the raid at 128 Abel Smith Street broke up a sinister cabal plotting to... discuss gluten-free food. The claims of "criminalisation of dissent", while seeming extreme, are to some degree justified due to the fact that the raids did not come out of the blue but were the latest and most extreme of attacks, false charges (which I've alluded to above) surveillance and bullying that has been going on for years. Not all of it makes the headlines, so a sudden eruption of press coverage and the activists' reaction can seem sudden, but it is rooted in history.
There is a context there.
-
None of those things make it rape.
Did I say that it was rape? No. You are continuing to argue that if it is not one thing, then it must be the other of widely separated options. The doctor example was the most egregious.
At least now you are bringing up clearly similar situations.
Are you sure? How can you be sure? My point is not that it was rape, but that - as you yourself admit - it carries inevitable connotations. As you mention, there are often armed guards and consent is doubtful. This is where the person being searched is obviously a danger to themself and others. What you fail to notice is the power differential and the intimidation of a young woman.
My point is that there must be extraordinary oversight for extraordinary circumstances because not only is the line between search and sexual assault very fine, the persons judging where it is - those with the guns - are not the best suited to make the call.
-
You're thinking of someone else there, who's not me. The person you're looking for in this matter is Finn.
Sorry, I stand corrected. Flu also.
-
I would most certainly judge somebody with connections to Kyle Chapman for refusing to condemn his activities, wouldn't you? Honestly?
What has distinguished this case is the blanket smear of all involved when trials are pending based on some very murky associations created largely in some search warrants that in the end uncovered four guns. Moreover, they are certainly under surveillance still. As I've said before, anything they say may be used - and that is why evidence is suppressed and that is why they're staying silent.
The choice they have is not between two black and white alternatives, it's between remaining silent and looking bad and saying to much and ruining someone's chance of a fair trial (if it hasn't been ruined already) and thereby appearing to justify the whole series of raids. One's bad, the other's worse.
Truth be told, there is a lot of division in the activist community - they're not some monolith, but there has been conscious agreement among the networks that mutual finger-pointing isn't going to help anyone. They're not quite as dumb as the People's Front of Judea.
Well, mostly not as dumb. The fact that some damned fool has got frustrated and posted the affidavit on the Internet and this document in particular seems to have come from the defence side probably has something to do with someone being a damned fool. Maybe they were angered at the fact that the Dompost already had been picking out choice quotes. The website, I hear went up long after Fairfax and TV3 received their leaked material.
Chapman, OK, I was wondering when that would come up. I'd certainly not think very charitably of such a person, but I would not go around claiming that they must be fascists. I don't demand loyalty pledges. To refer to the unwelcome Thatcher/Pinochet comparison, some of my best friends vote Conservative... (yes, really).
All you're doing is ignoring my point based on a grammatical construction
Now you're arguing in bad faith. It was not a grammatical point: you constructed your argument to hold up civil rights specifically to put them down in relation to what followed. That is the point I was making. It would be the same if you said 'however" or "nonetheless" or whatever.
consider the evidence and the rationale behind its inadmissability
Indeed. Do so.
Clint Rickards again. Found not guilty.
Thatcher (by Kyle), Chapman (whoops, unintentional pun), Rickards. Who next, Napoleon?
That's only pertinent if one takes a strict binarism of guilty/innocent and it's as reductionist and misleading as the doctor analogy above.
It's not merely a matter of Rickard's associations. It's his admitted coercive, grooming behaviour of vulnerable young women that makes him a despicable individual. Most people think that rape has to be at knifepoint, where the alternative is clearly death, but for many women, it's because they're pushed slowly into a state of learned helplessness. Even if it wasn't defined as rape in the final courtroom verdict, admitted systematic intimidation and isolating behaviour are grounds enough to believe that "not guilty" is not the same as "candidate for sainthood."
Add to that the fact that the trial was seriously unbalanced - that Louise Nicholas' past was brought up as a critical part of the defence, but the accuseds' pasts were suppressed, as was evidence from a prosecution witness and then the whole investigation was sabotaged by Dewar. That makes for a very dodgy trial and verdict.
There's enough there to be reasonably sure that Rickards is not someone that i'd invite around to dinner.
-
They have been entrusted by us not to abuse people with the power differential bestowed upon them.
My thoughts too. We can't just imagine that they have the best of motives and intentions and behave accordingly. That doesn't mean that they're fascist pigs, but in a society where certain people are granted extraordinary powers, then they must come under extraordinary scrutiny.
-
As far as I know, no one's accusing any police officers of having any sort of sex here.
Rape is not the same thing as sex.
OK, if you're going to jump into a conversation talking about X, and then start talking about Y, expect people to say "hey, I'm talking about X".
The basis of your argument there seemed to be that the civil liberties of the accused should not be defended because, hey, Thatcher defended Pinochet. It was a cheap ad hominem shot at best.
I'm sure some people feel humiliated after an up-close-and-personal visit to the doctor. That doesn't necessarily mean that the doctor did anything but a professional inspection.
Doctors have to adhere to very strict ethical guidelines and are struck off and/charged if they don't because of the nature of the power relationship that they have with their patients. If the doctor was in full combat gear and carried a bloody big gun, I'd be rather concerned to put it mildly. You cannot argue that there is not a further elevation of a coercive power relationship there. That's a false analogy.
-
And if they do, then NZ customs have got some serious navel gazing in the near future.
Maybe they do...
If it actually did happen, then I'd imagine that's how the police would view it too.
Your faith is touching. I can imagine pixies and elves, but I don't believe in them.
"very inappropriate"
Let's not mince words. It's "very inappropriate" to serve red wine with fish too. You do agree that sexual violation is criminal.
OK, let's do some leaping to determine exactly where the moral line is drawn:
"Your honour, my client did not ejaculate."
"Your honour, my client did not achieve erection."
"Your honour, the plaintiff consented."
So where does the line get drawn, since the exact placement of that line is so important?
Now those defences get used routinely in court, but I suggest that the key word might be consent. Supposed - I repeat, supposed intent is not a serious defence. Admittedly, in cases where a serious crime is suspected, a search may be necessary and even justifiable, without consent, but:
An imposed cavity search by a male police officer on a female inevitably carries with it implications of violence and sexual humiliation.
I'm sure it does. That doesn't necessarily make it rape though.
And you accepted the "inevitably".
So it's not rape, but it carries inevitable connotations of violation and humiliation... and then it doesn't.
Which is it?
My point was if you're going to argue it's rape
I didn't. Don't put words in my mouth, otherwise I'll find myself wandering down the street muttering, "Pinochet, Thatcher...".
In any case, sensitivity over this issue is called for. To - if this is the case - have a man conduct an act on a young girl that inevitably entails sexual humiliation without a female officer present and without a damn good reason is just plain stupid if not utterly vile.
-
Yup. But the word that was used was rape, not sexual violation.
Ah, that's all right then. Sorry.
The it's-not-quite-as-bad-as argument. Irrefutable, that is.