The Dim-Post

November 6, 2013

Baby it’s creepy outside

Filed under: crime,Politics — danylmc @ 12:30 pm

There’s a lot of interesting stuff going on in and around this instantly-infamous Radio Live clip in which John Tamihere and Willy Jackson interview a young female friend of an alleged gang-rape victim and calmly, clearly (repeatedly) explain to the girl that blame for these rapes lies with the victims, who deserved to be raped (although JT and Jackson use the term ‘mischief’ rather than ‘sexual assault on a minor’) as punishment for drinking alcohol, going to parties and misleading to their parents. They then go on to question the girl about her own sexual behavior, with what you might describe as heightened interest.

The first point here is that Jackson and Tamihere’s argument is identical to that of actual gang-rapists when interviewed in the academic literature. These groups generally feel that their victims have bought the attack on themselves so they’re actually delivering a form of justice. So hey, there’s that. The legitimisation of rape against minors is a weird message for Radio Live to be promoting, but whatever sells advertising, I guess.

Secondly, John Tamihere is CEO of the Waipareira Trust, and one of the other trustees is Clint Rickards, who resigned from the police after being charged in two high profile gang-rape cases. That might not mean anything, but the Trust works with local youth and is operating in the same area as the Roastbusters gang. So when people ask where these young kids are getting their ideas from they might look at the pillars of the local community, instead of, say Youtube or their iPhones or whatever.

Finally, there’s a huge amount of affection for Tamihere amongst the Trotterist factions of the Labour Party. People like Mike Williams and Josie Pagani feel JT’s well-documented pathological contempt for woman would be an electoral asset among blue-collar male voters, and David Shearer gushed that he’d be an amazing Minister for Social Development. The core tenet of Trotterism is that identity politics isn’t important, and if that faction in the party had its way they’d have a welfare spokesman who thinks that young girls who drink alcohol deserve to be gang-raped. So let me say again that Tamihere would be a poor choice for that role, and that, like Shane Jones he is basically un-electable, and that people in the Labour Party should stop promoting these weird, creepy misogynists. 

(Update: just responding to Bryce in the comments: I doubt the people in the last paragraph agree with Tamihere on this point; instead I think there’s a cynical calculation that ‘dumb male voters’ like him, so they’ll vote for his party.

About these ads

118 Comments »

  1. Danyl – I think this is somewhat of an unfair slur on Chris Trotter. Aren’t you basically implying that he is – and his thinking is – an apologist for rape? On what basis/evidence have you decided this? For what it’s worth, I’ve read Trotter’s next submitted newspaper column on the roast busters, and it’s a strong condemnation of it and the sexism in NZ society that leads to such a phenomenon.

    Comment by Bryce Edwards — November 6, 2013 @ 12:42 pm

  2. It’s all part of the old adage, you lie with dogs, you get fleas.

    Comment by northshoreguynz — November 6, 2013 @ 12:47 pm

  3. Interested to see the consequences for this (if any). I would consider it to be at least as offensive as making fun of an Indian lady’s surname or saying the governor general is overweight and of another culture to mainstream NZ.

    Also worth mentioning that it is not the first time that Jackson has defended a rapist and instead chosen to hold them up as an example for young people:

    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10838325

    Comment by Richard29 — November 6, 2013 @ 12:51 pm

  4. yeah well JT firmly put himself in the bastard box when he abandoned his pets when moving house

    Comment by framu — November 6, 2013 @ 1:00 pm

  5. In all fairness, Trotter probably regrets making the ‘Waitakere Man’ comment and should have just said “blue collar workers who feel abandoned by Labour”. Unfortunately, Waitakere Man has now transformed into a Third Way professional pols/pundit’s fantasy which equates all blue collar males with “honest blokes”/ garbage people like Tamihere – which is patronising to blue collar males. Real problem is there’s a sizeable chunk of New Zealanders from all backgrounds who adhere to the “frontbums should wear long dresses and be home by 9″ school of dickish thought.

    Comment by finetoothcolumn — November 6, 2013 @ 1:25 pm

  6. If anything, it’s even worse than Danyl suggests. It’s a classic case of Rumsfeldian not knowing what we don’t know.

    Tamihere and Jackson’s radio show is relentlessly homophobic, mysogynist and just plain nasty. For that reason, most of us don’t listen to it. Therefore we don’t know how nasty it is. (Somebody will now pop up and say “Use the off switch”, but not all of us can command and control our radio listening in the workday). Unlike telly clips and newspaper columns, their radio bile is largely un-linked and unnoticed by those living in the online world.

    The politicians who enable and appease should take some responsibility here. Every time Key/Shearer/Cunliffe/whoever pops in for a jokey chat with their “mates” on Radio Live, they legitimise this poison.

    Comment by sammy 2.0 — November 6, 2013 @ 1:56 pm

  7. I’d exercise a little caution if I were you, Danyl.

    Comment by Chris Trotter — November 6, 2013 @ 2:26 pm

  8. It probably isn’t a good idea to shout about it in advance, but it should be the next left-wing governments mission to get MediaWorks (and TRN, for that matter) off the air completely within their term of office. Put a huge extra charge on spectrum, ban overseas ownership, physically demolish the transmitters, whatever it takes.

    Comment by richdrich — November 6, 2013 @ 2:28 pm

  9. My memory can’t remember which blog(I think) recently published a graph on radio listenership. Nat Rad rated highly among the professionals, and I think radio live on the building site.

    Comment by northshoreguynz — November 6, 2013 @ 2:35 pm

  10. And now Tamihere is playing the victim poor-me card (last para):

    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11152447

    Surprise surprise. Watch him cry foul and blame other people when he doesn’t get selected or Labour.

    Comment by MeToo — November 6, 2013 @ 2:40 pm

  11. *for Labour

    Comment by MeToo — November 6, 2013 @ 2:41 pm

  12. It’s worth pointing out that Shane Jones has done a 180 and at the weekend spoke in favour of the 45% minimum women in caucus list selection rule that is so exercising male commentators.

    Comment by Stephen J — November 6, 2013 @ 4:09 pm

  13. Labour now has to draw its line in the sand on this issue because its a bedrock one & cast out any bad blood that still bears a dominance of reptilian genes

    Comment by Sub Strata (@Sub_Strata) — November 6, 2013 @ 4:39 pm

  14. Is questioning the behaviours that make young women vulnerable to sexual assault really the same thing as ‘blaming the victims’? I’m not especially interested in attributing ‘blame’ to anyone for sexual encounters that are experienced as rape by women (whatever the male partner might believe about whether consent has been given). I’m more inclined to see such incidents as a problem that demand a solution: tackling what some have called the ‘rape culture’. Surely underage drinking and binge drinking are part of this ‘rape culture’ – or at least part of the culture that makes sexual assault possible?

    I’m not remotely interested in ‘blaming’ the woman. In most cases I’m not especially interested in ‘blaming’ the man either, despite the seductiveness of lapsing into the language of ‘victims’ and ‘offenders’ (or even ‘predators’). I certainly think that treating rape primarily as a criminal issue is a disastrous failure, partly because of the difficulty of proving the allegation and partly because of the difficulty of defining the offence. Sexual assault should be treated first and foremost as a public health issue, and doing so might well involve asking some of the questions that John Tamihere has so ineptly and inarticulately voiced. If we are serious about reducing the incidence of rape, we may have to abandon some of our lazy moral assumptions, as well as acknowledging the contradictions that beset our society’s libertine-yet-censorious sexual ethic.

    Comment by Higgs Boatswain — November 6, 2013 @ 5:56 pm

  15. Just as an aside, TV3 News are absolutely owning TVNZ One News over this story. They broke the story and TVNZ were forced to lead with it the next day. Now TV3 have a fresh scoop – a (then) 13 year old who made a complaint to the police two years ago that was ignored, contradicting police claims no one has laid a complaint.

    Comment by Sanctuary — November 6, 2013 @ 6:19 pm

  16. Sexual assault should be treated first and foremost as a public health issue, and doing so might well involve asking some of the questions that John Tamihere has so ineptly and inarticulately voiced.

    Fresh off saying that deliberately getting 14 year olds so drunk they lapse in and out of consciousness, having group sex with them, and then demeaning them on the internet is just normal, high-spirited teenage boy behaviour that we ought to be a bit more tolerant and understanding of, Higgs Boatswain is back with a radical way to make sexual offending disappear. Just call it something else! It’s not “crime”, it’s just a poor life choice with possibly harmful health consequences – a bit like drinking too much sugary softdrinks!

    Any other assaults on one of the most intimate and fundamental parts of person’s sense of self that we’re going to trivialise in a way that displays absolutely no understanding of its impact on survivors? Personally, I think the “crime” of getting stabbed on the street while walking home after a dinner out is poorly conceptualised, and ought to be seen more in terms of a public nuisance. I mean, shouldn’t we be asking what role all those people who insist on using the footpaths after dark play in the subsequent insertion of a knife numerous times into their abdomen? All this talk of “victims” blinds us to the more complicated nuances of the issue.

    Comment by Flashing Light — November 6, 2013 @ 6:51 pm

  17. Higgs Boatswain: In most cases I’m not especially interested in ‘blaming’ the man either

    Congratulations. You’ve set the Rape Culture high score for this thread.

    L

    Comment by Lew (@LewSOS) — November 6, 2013 @ 7:00 pm

  18. >Congratulations. You’ve set the Rape Culture high score for this thread.

    I’m expecting a double down any minute.

    Comment by Ben Wilson — November 6, 2013 @ 7:06 pm

  19. Higgs Boatswain – Can you elaborate on these ‘lazy moral assumptions’? I can get behind you when you complain of the difficulty of proving the allegation, but of defining the offence – surely it’s pretty clear-cut?

    Comment by Will — November 6, 2013 @ 7:53 pm

  20. Is questioning the behaviours that make young women vulnerable to sexual assault really the same thing as ‘blaming the victims’?

    Yes if you’re talking about the woman’s behaviour , no if you’re talking about the perpetrator’s behaviour.

    I don’t think it takes much for young men to behave badly – and learn no lessons and grow up to be JT – but it does seem to me that the internet – porn and the social media – have played a big part in this latest case.

    Comment by NeilM — November 6, 2013 @ 7:53 pm

  21. “Congratulations. You’ve set the Rape Culture high score for this thread.”

    I think the “for this thread” part may be redundant. Wowsers.

    Comment by garygoodguy — November 6, 2013 @ 8:58 pm

  22. I like this bit “Surely underage drinking and binge drinking are part of this ‘rape culture’ – or at least part of the culture that makes sexual assault possible? ”

    Actually, the main risk factor for being a victim of sexual assault (or abuse of some kind) is to be a woman who knows a man. Having male family members is risky, as is being of Maori ethnicity. Being a child is not that good either…

    http://www.justice.govt.nz/publications/global-publications/s/safer-communities-action-plan-to-reduce-community-violence-sexual-violence/action-plan-to-reduce-community-violence-and-sexual-violence#Sexual%20Violence

    http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0145213407002050

    People should try harder not to be these things!

    Alcohol and drugs are an issue but mainly on the offenders side – “46% of victims of sexual violence thought the offender was affected by alcohol and/ or drugs.”

    Comment by Amy — November 6, 2013 @ 9:00 pm

  23. Higgs Boatswain (and anyone else querying victim blaming) yes, “questioning the behaviours that make young women vulnerable to sexual assault” really is victim blaming. Victim blaming is not merely a question, nor is it an action. It’s the entire thought process of people talking about rape:

    People tend to question why the victim got raped before questioning why the rapist committed rape.

    Many people don’t even bother asking why the rapist committed rape.

    Alcohol assumption of the rapist is a much higher predictor of rape than victim alcohol consumption.

    People still think a rapist is a bad person who lives on the outside of society, who attacks strangers walking alone at night.

    1/4 of New Zealand women have been raped. This suggests that there is a serious problem with rapists, not that 1/4 of women behave in an abnormal way that is “asking for” sexual assault.

    With regard to what crime other than sexual assault do we question the credibility of the victim before we look into the facts of the case?

    If the victim wore different clothes, they might still be attacked.

    If the victim wasn’t at the party, there might have been a different victim, but there would probably still be a victim.

    If there was no rapist at the party, there would have been no rape.

    Sex is a symbol of success for men, and of shame for women.

    These questions are designed to cause the victim shame.

    They are designed to challenge the victim.

    They are designed to control the behaviour of all potential victims (generally assumed to be women).

    This is what we mean when we say victim blaming.

    For more information, see http://stoprelationshipabuse.org/educated/avoiding-victim-blaming/ or http://everydayvictimblaming.com/

    Comment by Kathryn Clare (@KathrynClareNZ) — November 6, 2013 @ 9:02 pm

  24. At the risk of being lynched by the thought police, I’d like to know why young girls were willingly hanging out with males they must have known were (allegedly) sexual predators? Wouldn’t that strike most people – even a teenager – as not that bright a thing to do? The girls who were (allegedly) victimised by these guys must have heard from members of their peer group what they were like and had been doing.

    Comment by Peter Plumley-Walker — November 6, 2013 @ 9:15 pm

  25. At the risk of being lynched by the thought police …

    A helpful intro, so we all knew what was coming next. And it did.

    Funny how people who blame victims feel the need to cast themselves as victims first.

    Comment by sammy 2.0 — November 6, 2013 @ 9:56 pm

  26. Peter – The males in question intentionally targeted younger girls, who would be flattered by attention from the older cooler kids, and who did not know what they were like. They talked about how to flirt with the girls and groom them before the parties so that they would disregard the truth as rumours and petty jealousy.

    In any case the only behaviour that results in rape is the rapists decision to rape. Many teenagers sneak out, go to parties, get drunk etc the only thing that should result is, possibly, a grounding and a headache.

    Comment by Greville — November 6, 2013 @ 9:57 pm

  27. Peter Plumley-Walker, at the risk of sounding like the thought police, perhaps you could read the link in Danyl’s post and think about ways to talk that don’t make you sound like a rapist.

    One other thing you could do, if you want to learn about this stuff, is to go to places on the net where women are talking about it and read. Read. Don’t comment. Don’t butt in demanding answers. Look for the answers yourself. Listen to women.

    Comment by Pascal's bookie — November 6, 2013 @ 9:58 pm

  28. At the risk of being lynched by the thought police, I’d like to know why young girls were willingly hanging out with males they must have known were (allegedly) sexual predators? Wouldn’t that strike most people – even a teenager – as not that bright a thing to do? The girls who were (allegedly) victimised by these guys must have heard from members of their peer group what they were like and had been doing.

    There’s two ways to answer that.

    1. I don’t know about you, but when I was a teenager I had really terrible judgement. This is a neurological thing: you’re full of hormones, your brain is underdeveloped, etc. So teenage girls and teenage boys are going to do dumb things, always, until the end of time. But it seems unreasonable that the penalty for doing a dumb thing – having drinks at a party, say, is to be gang-raped. Think back to questionable decisions you made as a thirteen year old kid, ask yourself if it would have been reasonable for a bunch of guys to rape you as a consequence, and for them to escape punishment on the grounds that a thirteen year old made an error of judgement.

    2. The other point that a bunch of people are going to make is that placing the blame on the victim (‘why was she there? what was she wearing? was she drinking?’) perpetuates what feminist theory calls ‘rape culture’. And this Roastbusters thing is a textbook example in which a bunch of guys go around raping girls and justifying it to themselves on the grounds that those girls deserved it – they were drunk, dressed up etc. And the victims don’t prosecute because they ALSO feel like they deserved it, or, if they do complain, it isn’t taken seriously because they get told they deserved it. That’s why contemporary feminists will get REALLY angry with you when you ask questions about a victims behavior: because it isn’t an innocent inconsequential question, its perpetuating a culture that legitimises rape.

    Comment by danylmc — November 6, 2013 @ 10:01 pm

  29. And to distract from the rape apologists, I just wanted to chuck in a retraction of my comment on an earlier thread saying I thought the police were doing okay on this issue. I said that when police were claiming they were not prosecuting as they had no formal complaints, which as Sanctuary points out above, is now contradicted by a victim saying she complained 2 years ago.

    How fast do we think this would have an inquiry slapped on it if it were John Key’s kids raped? So much for Crusher Collins being ‘tough on crime’! Just yesterday police were saying they had no complaints – did they lose this girl’s complaint, or just think it unworthy? The latter it seems, as cops now claim it wasn’t enough evidence to prosecute. Which doesn’t explain the police lie that they had no complaints. Heads should roll.

    Comment by bob — November 6, 2013 @ 11:17 pm

  30. Thanks Bob. I can’t remember being this angry at the police. That poor brave girl having to hear police and ministers saying that no one had been brave enough to lay a complaint, when she had.

    Damn them all to all to hell.

    Comment by Pascal's bookie — November 7, 2013 @ 4:26 am

  31. I get what the feminists are saying about “rape culture”. And what I’m asking isn’t akin to saying women shouldn’t wear short skirts or walk through parks at night. What I’m saying is that young people living in West Auckland knew what these guys were like. They text, they use Facebook and Ask.fm and they talk. But still these young victims willingly placed themselves in the company of people they knew were rapists (allegedly). I can’t understand that. I was 13 once, and I even went to parties, but I would never have consumed alcohol with someone who I knew might be planning to rape me. That’s not “blaming the victim”. The offernder is always to blame. It’s asking for young people to try to use their brains.

    Comment by Peter Plumley-Walker — November 7, 2013 @ 6:51 am

  32. That’s not “blaming the victim”. The offernder is always to blame. It’s asking for young people to try to use their brains.

    Because if they’re dumb enough they deserve all they get? A bit like your namesake perhaps, who was dumb enough to pay for the privilege of being thrown to his death by a pair of bogans.

    Comment by Joe W — November 7, 2013 @ 7:38 am

  33. I haven’t really commented on this because we’ve got a full blown moral panic going on now. The authoritarian liberals of Grey Lynn and Pt. Chev are in full voice, might as well let them have the floor.

    The other reason I haven’t commented is we are blaming kids here – teenagers – for responding in a sick way to a fucked up culture that we adults have fashioned. Why are we all acting so surprised and worried that kids are picking up and acting on the explicit cultural signals we as adults have endorsed to be broadcast to them?

    I was a nineteen when I first got drunk, and I wasn’t untypical. Part of what we are seeing here is the consequences of lowering the drinking age at the same time as the price of cheap alcohol targetted at teens fell through the floor and we allowed supermarkets and dairys and every Uncle Tom Cobbly to sell alcohol at all hours. Our society has become pickled in booze. My parents and their friends would often take us kids to the beach or the river when we were small for the day. There was never a drop a alcohol. Nor was their alcohol at many BBQs we went to. This is almost unimaginable today. No wonder kids are getting pissed at 13, we’ve rolled out the red carpet of alcohol abuse and they’ve had to do is step out along it.

    I watched part of the X factor USA last night, and there was a three member girl group on called “Sweet Suspense”. They were highly sexualised, in that wierd American plausible deniability kinda way. They are also 14, 16 and 17 years old. Any appearance of Nabakov’s knowing pre-teen is guaranteed to get middle aged music journalists quite hot and bothered, be it Lana Del Rey or Lorde. We read all the time that we are apparently supposed to be delighted at the fabulously glamorous life that awaits some 14 year old in the world of international modelling – a business known for drug abuse and exploitation. The point is, as a society we are talking out of both sides of our mouth. We piously condemn the exploitation of (very) young teens by the roastbusters whilst the age of pop starlets or the freshest new modelling talent in short skirts and full make up has plummeted to the point 14 is almost normal, and all of it approved of by the guardians of cultural acceptability amongst our magazines and our music and fashion writers.

    As a society, we’ve created this youth culture, and we get the behaviour from it that we adults deserve. It is a miracle (and a tribute to them and their parents) that so many kids navigate the shoals of adult sharks who make a living out of preying on them. But let’s no fool ourselves into thinking the roastbusters are anything other than a very ugly reflection of the society us adults have carefully built.

    Comment by Sanctuary — November 7, 2013 @ 7:43 am

  34. As of this morning, the fuckwit cop going on about the need for one of these victims to be “brave enough” to make a complaint is looking even more dodgy, as Stuff reports that no less than four of the victims actually were brave enough to go to the cops, much good that it did them. Someone was complaining on an earlier thread about people suggesting that rape culture in the NZ Police is the reason for the inaction on this – well, as it turns out their attitude is even worse than we thought.

    Comment by Psycho Milt — November 7, 2013 @ 7:43 am

  35. When I was 13 my social circle was atually very limited. I had a close group of about 5 or 6 friends (all girls), I knew the thirty kids in my class ok, and I had crushes on a few of the older boys. Did I really have any idea what those glamorous 15 or 17 year olds were like? No, not really. Since I didn’t know any of their friends I also had no way of finding out.

    If one of them had asked me to a party, would I have gone? Yes, probably. I was very young and naive. Would I deserve to get gang raped for that? No, absolutely not.

    Also if you assume that these guys were so well known that the average west Auckland 14 year old girl should have known about their behaviour, kind of begs the question, why aren’t you blaming the police for not prosecuting them? I mean if they’re that notorious and there is that much proof out there that every teenage girl should know…

    Comment by Amy — November 7, 2013 @ 7:45 am

  36. I was 13 once, and I even went to parties, but I would never have consumed alcohol with someone who I knew might be planning to rape me. That’s not “blaming the victim”.

    Actually, it kind of is.

    And if your contribution to the debate is to encourage 13 year olds to “use their brains” … well, that’s very useful.

    Comment by Flashing Light — November 7, 2013 @ 7:55 am

  37. I haven’t really commented on this because we’ve got a full blown moral panic going on now. The authoritarian liberals of Grey Lynn and Pt. Chev are in full voice, might as well let them have the floor.

    In that case, thank Christ that Sanctuary is here to inject a dose of level headed end-of-days cultural criticism from his survivalist lifestyle block bunker.

    Comment by Flashing Light — November 7, 2013 @ 7:59 am

  38. Peter,

    I think you are making big assumptions about what these girls thought of these guys. I doubt very much they thought they were going to a party with gang rapists.

    I have to say this case has changed my thinking on the idea of rape cases being very difficult to prosecute. I had assumed that the police get complaints about one off sex between two people of age where the question was of consent. But this case has (we now know) multiple complainants, underage girls (so a consent defense is not possible) and a website. So what are the police up to?

    Comment by Swan — November 7, 2013 @ 8:00 am

  39. Assuming 13 year old girls who are on their own know how to act around a group of 16 or 17 year old boys – really? Were you ever 13?

    When I was 13 and 14 and 15 I could easily have drifted into something bad, had I been led in that direction. I wouldn’t have said “yes” but I wouldn’t have known I could say “no” either. I was timid and raised to do as I was told. I craved acceptance. It wasn’t until I was about 17 that I found my voice and started to get any confidence in my interactions in the world. I remember at my first job at 15 – my boss used to stand too close and on several occasions asked me when I was going to turn 16… I was terrified but had no idea what to do. Had he done anything, other than just creep me out and terrify me, what would I have done? Who would I have told?

    Comment by MeToo — November 7, 2013 @ 8:12 am

  40. Well it is not often that I agree with Sanctuary (especially when he thinks going around with some mates and dealing to the alleged rapers is the way to go) but on this occasion he hits the nail right bang on the head

    Comment by rayinnz — November 7, 2013 @ 8:53 am

  41. @MeToo

    When I was 16, a 25-year-old police officer who was best man at my sister’s wedding climbed into bed with me and pressured me to have sex. I refused, but felt terrible to have been put in that situation by someone I looked up to. I told my sister, but she said she wouldn’t tell her husband as the guy was his best friend. She also told me the guy, who was engaged, would not have sex with his fiancée as he expected her to remain a virgin until marriage. It was a harsh introduction to the adult world and its hypocrisies and double standards.

    The means may have changed, and the media/booze industry may be enhancing it, but the tendency of some men to take advantage of naïve young women and treat them disrespectfully is nothing new.

    Comment by Laura — November 7, 2013 @ 9:31 am

  42. I confess to having rolled my eyes a bit in the past when the subject of rape culture came up.

    Boy was I wrong. Sorry about that.

    Comment by Nick R — November 7, 2013 @ 9:39 am

  43. I love nothing more than a good witch hunt…where can I get a pitchfork?

    Comment by Ross — November 7, 2013 @ 11:18 am

  44. I love nothing more than a good witch hunt…where can I get a pitchfork?

    Yeah, Ross … that’s exactly what this is.

    You dick.

    Comment by Flashing Light — November 7, 2013 @ 11:31 am

  45. I was 13 once, and I even went to parties, but I would never have consumed alcohol with someone who I knew might be planning to rape me. That’s not “blaming the victim”.

    The other point to throw in here is that this kind of, ‘I’m not blaming the victim, I’m just asking why a 13 year old girl . . .’ stuff is basically unique to sexual assult crimes, and completely ubiquitous when sexual assault is discussed. When someone gets assaulted in their house by a home invader we don’t hear half the population chiming in: ‘I’m not blaming the victim, I just want to know why they had so much jewellery in their house when they knew there were home invaders in the neighbourhood’, and when someone gets killed by a drink-driver you don’t hear ‘Obviously the main fault is with the offender, but didn’t they know there were drunks out on the road at that time of night? Shoulnd’t they have used some common sense?’

    With all other kinds of crime there’s just an assumption that people should be able to go about their lives protected by the criminal justice system and that the system should punish people who violate their rights. So it’s worth asking why this one, very horrible, very specific type of crime makes you take an intense interest in the behaviour of the victims instead of the people who attacked them and the justice system that failed to protect them.

    Comment by Danyl — November 7, 2013 @ 11:45 am

  46. All this is eerily similar to that incident back in ’02 when a schoolboy in Hawkes Bay got drunk and passed out at a party, and ended up getting buggered by a gang with a broom handle covered in VapoRub. Of course the perpetrators were universally condemned, swiftly prosecuted and jailed, just like the Roast Busters! Oh, wait…

    Comment by Purple-Shirted Eye Stabber — November 7, 2013 @ 11:52 am

  47. 1. And the victims don’t prosecute because they ALSO feel like they deserved it,

    An example of that is from the young woman who phoned Andrew Fagan and Karen Hay on Radio Live (and for which Fagan is being criticised for his questioning). I’ve excerpted the relevant bits below but you can access the audio via http://tumeke.blogspot.co.nz/2013/11/andrew-fagan-rape-apologist.html.

    “Fourteen years old I was walking home from school, met up with a guy who I quite fancied, if I can just break into that now, I never even thought this was rape or anything like it until I heard this topic today, because I just thought, yeah I drank, I was the one who chose to drink. So yeah 14 years old, I went back to his house, had one of those a 750ml bottle of beer, first time I had drunk, the first time I realised I’d lost my virginity was when I’d seen a blood spot. So that was my reality.
    “…And listening to the talk over the last couple of days, I’ve had tears in my eyes because I’m thinking, shit, I was kind of hard done by and I put myself in the position of these girls now and I can understand totally why no-one has come forward. Because the guilt is on you, and you blame yourself, because you might have hopped in the car with these guys so therefore you’re guilty. Do you understand where I’m coming from, Karen?”

    Comment by Ataahua — November 7, 2013 @ 11:54 am

  48. Not excusing it Danyl but I guess it’s because sexual assault cases often come down to one person’s word against the other. And so – who do you believe? How credible is the complainant? And we must assume the alleged perpetrator is innocent until proven guilty…

    I’m guessing that is the rational explanation.

    And then there is just rape culture.

    Comment by MeToo — November 7, 2013 @ 11:55 am

  49. “So it’s worth asking why this one, very horrible, very specific type of crime makes you take an intense interest in the behaviour of the victims instead of the people who attacked them and the justice system that failed to protect them.”

    Answering your question, you’re assuming that in this case the justice system has failed any victims (indeed, it hasn’t been proven that there are victims). That’s a rather big assumption. Second, I don’t believe sexual assault/rape is the only crime where the victim’s behaviour may be questioned. Don’t you recall the furore over the killing of Trayvon Martin and whether George Zimmerman was justified in killing Martin? What about the likely death of Irena Asher who called police only for them to send a taxi? People who cared for Asher the night of her disappearance were criticised in an official report for not calling police. Why should these innocent people have suffered such a fate?

    Comment by Ross — November 7, 2013 @ 11:59 am

  50. > And we must assume the alleged perpetrator is innocent until proven guilty…

    Hmmm that hasn’t happened here. The assumption is that these guys are guilty and we should just throw away the key. Kind of like what happened with Peter Ellis, though there is no clear evidence he sexually abused any kids.

    Comment by Ross — November 7, 2013 @ 12:04 pm

  51. Ross,

    I don’t see anyone saying that. What is being questioned is the actions of the police and those who are constantly questioning the actions of the complainants.

    Contrast this to some of the murder cases we have had in NZ (eg Ewen McDonald), where the police seem to be extremely keen to lay charges and prosecute. I mean, here, the cops (institutionally) didn’t even seem to know anyone had come forward. Imagine a murder case where the cops say “oh yeah that dead body, well laying charges is difficult without evidence and noones come forward”, and then a few days later we found out an eye witness had come forward. It just would not happen.

    Comment by Swan — November 7, 2013 @ 12:16 pm

  52. Yes, Laura @47, the sad thing is how common these stories are. And they’re not new, and are not to do with the drinking culture really – alcohol facilitates it, but is not the cause. Lots of people drink and get drunk but do not suddenly find themselves turned into sexual predators. My 78 year old former mother in law conceived my ex as a result of a “date rape” – she, a naive and inexperienced 20 year old flattered by the attention of an older (24 year old) man in a suit, a man liked and trusted by her parents. Like a lamb to the slaughter…. the only modern things about the roastbusters story is the use of social media to humiliate. Everything else is, sadly, very much the same.

    Comment by MeToo — November 7, 2013 @ 12:28 pm

  53. Laura @41…

    Comment by MeToo — November 7, 2013 @ 12:29 pm

  54. The assumption is that these guys are guilty and we should just throw away the key. Kind of like what happened with Peter Ellis, though there is no clear evidence he sexually abused any kids.

    Nothing here remotely like the manufactured moral panic surrounding the Ellis case. From my recollection of Lynley Hood’s excellent A City Possessed, the only way Ellis appears to have fed the witch hunt directed against him was to have made a few facetious remarks, entirely in jest, when being interviewed. If he’d actively boasted of doing the very things of which he was later falsely set up for your comparison might be valid.

    Comment by Joe W — November 7, 2013 @ 12:48 pm

  55. “The other point to throw in here is that this kind of, ‘I’m not blaming the victim, I’m just asking why a 13 year old girl . . .’ stuff is basically unique to sexual assult crimes, and completely ubiquitous when sexual assault is discussed. When someone gets assaulted in their house by a home invader we don’t hear half the population chiming in: ‘I’m not blaming the victim, I just want to know why they had so much jewellery in their house when they knew there were home invaders in the neighbourhood’, and when someone gets killed by a drink-driver you don’t hear ‘Obviously the main fault is with the offender, but didn’t they know there were drunks out on the road at that time of night? Shoulnd’t they have used some common sense?’”

    When someone gets assaulted in their house by a home invader we don’t question the victim, because they didn’t invite the home invader in. That’s the difference here – they aren’t knowingly putting themselves in a position to be victimised. When someone gets killed by a drink-driver, we don’t blame the innocent motorist, because they didn’t do anything stupid. We do however question the intelligence of anyone who was injured or killed if they knowingly got into a car with a drink-driver, because such behaviour could be harmful.

    Comment by Peter Plumley-Walker — November 7, 2013 @ 12:50 pm

  56. If he’d actively boasted of doing the very things of which he was later falsely set up for your comparison might be valid.

    Exactly. Either these guys are rapists who’ve (so far) got away with their offences (possibly due to a less-than stellar police investigation), or these guys are fantasist rapists who take great pride in portraying themselves as such on the internet. In either case, I’m not quite sure what it is that Ross is seeking to defend or excuse.

    Comment by Andrew Geddis — November 7, 2013 @ 1:13 pm

  57. Danyl you have a need for counselling (heh) your conspiracy concerning Tamihere, Trotter et al suggests you have been ingesting substances you should avoid. The fevered tribal Aro Valley discussions are not the best source of insightful comment, they are useful for occasional humour, intentional or otherwise.

    Comment by peterlepaysan — November 7, 2013 @ 9:23 pm

  58. > In either case, I’m not quite sure what it is that Ross is seeking to defend or excuse

    I didn’t realise I was seeking to defend or excuse anything, Andrew. See my comment at 49. Danyl has assumed, it seems, that rapes have occurred. That is far from clear. He also made the point that the focus on the “victim’s” behaviour is specific to sexual crimes. That is simply incorrect.

    Comment by Ross — November 8, 2013 @ 8:07 am

  59. I note that several years ago Jan Jordan carried out research into rapes cases in NZ. She found that in 41% of complaints, the complainant admitted that they’d made a false complaint, or police determined the complaint to be false. It is legitimate to ask why a man would boast about raping a woman and it is equally legitimate to ask why a woman would make a false complaint of rape.

    Comment by Ross — November 8, 2013 @ 8:13 am

  60. “Either these guys are rapists who’ve (so far) got away with their offences (possibly due to a less-than stellar police investigation), or these guys are fantasist rapists who take great pride in portraying themselves as such on the internet.”

    Or maybe some of what they say is true (ie, having consensual sex with young girls).

    Comment by Ross — November 8, 2013 @ 8:17 am

  61. Ross, I want a citation please. I’ve been googling Jordan’s work, and the fragments I find don’t contain that statistic. Further, what I have found of her work on rape complaints notes that police reject complaints based on their assessment of women’s background, appearance, etc, and not the facts of the case. When I read her work here — http://www.hawaii.edu/hivandaids/Beyond_Belief__Police,_Rape_and_Women_s_Credibility.pdf — I see that she was looking at reasons why police reject complaints from the point of view of looking at how police assess complainant credibility. It does not paint the police in a great light, and it doesn’t support your position that I see.

    Comment by Stephen J — November 8, 2013 @ 8:42 am

  62. I see that she was looking at reasons why police reject complaints from the point of view of looking at how police assess complainant credibility.

    How much of that is because of the legal framework the police have to work in.

    Laying charges means putting ones self at the mercy of an adversarial legal system.

    Had the police laid charged then the defense would have been able to call on at least 5 girls to testify that these guys were the best people evergreen and that any girl getting involved with them knew what was comming.

    Great,

    It’s all very well to call for justice but it is merely a legal system and that’s not because of police rape culture.

    Comment by NeilM — November 8, 2013 @ 9:36 am

  63. Ross says:

    Or maybe some of what they say is true (ie, having consensual sex with young girls).

    Which is, of course, illegal in itself. But this isn’t (just) what the guys were “boasting” of on-line. And it isn’t what the girl who made a formal complaint said happened to her.

    Now, that may not add up to sufficient evidence to prosecute in a court of law and obtain a conviction. But this is the realm of social discourse, in which judgments can be made at a lower level of proof … is it more likely than not that these guys are nasty sexual predators who just don’t care whether a young girl wants to have sex with them? And you seem very, very keen to find reasons why they aren’t what they present themselves to be, and that the girls involved (and they are just girls) actually were willing participants in some way – which is pretty much rape culture in a nutshell.

    Comment by Flashing Light — November 8, 2013 @ 10:31 am

  64. @Ross: Yeah, I’ve spoken to Jordan about her research and she found the exact opposite of what you purport – her finding was that there is a culture of rejecting rape complaints among the police.

    Comment by Hugh — November 8, 2013 @ 10:47 am

  65. Jackson & Tamihere’s radio programme is now running on empty. The advertising has been pulled. No commercial breaks, and so Radio Live is considering its future, apparently.

    *Doffs cap to Giovanni Tiso & co.*

    Comment by sammy 2.0 — November 8, 2013 @ 1:21 pm

  66. DM, I’d be surprised if you could even begin to attempt to provide evidence for the twin assertions that there’s ‘a huge amount of affection for Tamihere amongst the Trotterist factions of the Labour Party. People like Mike Williams and Josie Pagani feel JT’s well-documented pathological contempt for woman would be an electoral asset among blue-collar male voters…..’
    Pagani has wiped off your spittle on Pundit, as has Trotter in the comments above.
    Frankly, your notion of a ‘Trotterist faction’ is of itself ridiculous, and the implied consequences rather nastier than your usual smart-arsery in relation to Trotter.

    Comment by paritutu — November 8, 2013 @ 1:23 pm

  67. @Paritutu

    In the Pundit column you cite, Josie Pagani says: “I have previously spoken out in support of Willie and JT, as politicians with something to contribute to the community.”

    But she has done more than that. She has supported his candidacy for the Labour party – and not in the distant past, but since the last election, on numerous occasions.

    There is a very clear and fundamental difference between 1) defending free speech and 2) endorsing a candidate for her own party. “You can talk crap if you want” does not equate to “You should be on the party list”.

    Understanding that requires a basic grasp of logic, which sadly Pagani appears to lack.

    Comment by sammy 2.0 — November 8, 2013 @ 1:43 pm

  68. Sammy 2.0, I was referencing ‘people like Mike Williams and Josie Pagani feel JT’s well-documented pathological contempt for woman would be an electoral asset ‘ which I considered to be an entirely gratuitous construction on DM’s part.

    Comment by paritutu — November 8, 2013 @ 2:21 pm

  69. OK, so an accurate statement would be “people like Josie Pagani [note - in fairness, I'll exclude Mike Williams] feels JT would be an electoral asset despite his well-documented pathological contempt for woman” ?

    Because there are two facts here: 1) Pagani believes Tamihere should be a Labour candidate, and 2) he has the well-documented contempt.

    If Pagani no longer supports Tamihere for Labour, she is welcome to say so. It would be good to hear.

    Comment by sammy 2.0 — November 8, 2013 @ 2:31 pm

  70. 68.Sammy 2.0, I was referencing ‘people like Mike Williams and Josie Pagani feel JT’s well-documented pathological contempt for woman would be an electoral asset ‘ which I considered to be an entirely gratuitous construction on DM’s part.

    Someone told me William’s doesn’t actually like Tamihere, so maybe I’m wrong there. Anyway, this isn’t new ground for Tamihere. He was dropped from the Labour list after a very famous, mindblowingly misogynistic interview with Investigate Magazine. That was back in 2005, and he’s been repeating the same things in his radio show and on media ever since. People can’t pretend they’re suddenly shocked by this, or that they didn’t know what he was like.

    Comment by Danyl — November 8, 2013 @ 2:31 pm

  71. Frankly, your notion of a ‘Trotterist faction’ is of itself ridiculous

    His ideas were weirdly influential during the catastrophic early months of Shearer’s leadership.

    Comment by Danyl — November 8, 2013 @ 2:36 pm

  72. @paritutu,

    Well, there’s plenty of justification to saying Tamihere has a problem with women (we could revisit the whole “front bum” interview, but let’s not). Describing this as a “pathological contempt for woman” may be a bit of blogging licence, but I don’t think Tamihere can complain about the robust expression of opinion. And it also is true that Pagani has been a vocal proponent of Tamihere once again joining Labour’s caucus.

    So I guess the dispute is whether she thinks he’d make a great Labour MP because of his problem with women (because it conforms to a certain idea of masculinity that she thinks Labour needs to have on display if it is to recapture its “natural base” – Trotter’s “Waitakere Man” made flesh), or if he’d make a great Labour MP in spite of his problem with women (because he has other good qualities that outweigh this problem). Up until now, she certainly hasn’t made it clear that the latter is the case. And it’ll be interesting to see if her “disgust with the attitude” of Tamihere now extends to saying he’s unfit to be a Labour candidate (which, you’ll note, she doesn’t say in her post).

    Comment by Flashing Light — November 8, 2013 @ 2:40 pm

  73. And it’ll be interesting to see if her “disgust with the attitude” of Tamihere now extends to saying he’s unfit to be a Labour candidate (which, you’ll note, she doesn’t say in her post).

    Comment by Andrew Geddis — November 8, 2013 @ 2:42 pm

  74. Sorry! Premature posting.

    What I was going to say is, I’ll ask her this on the Pundit comment thread.

    Comment by Andrew Geddis — November 8, 2013 @ 2:43 pm

  75. For Pagani I think it’s only fair to judge her for her long held public support for Tamihere – such as this pearler from the Harold in Nov 2012

    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10847238

    “She’s been very supportive of Labour leader David Shearer, defending him when the leftists attacked him for his speech mentioning a cheating ACC beneficiary working on a roof.

    But he needs to be bolder, she says, such as condemning those in the party resisting moves by former Cabinet minister John Tamihere to rejoin Labour. That shouldn’t be tolerated.

    “That sends a message to anyone that thinks like John Tamihere that we’re going to vet you.”

    She may have empathy with Mr Tamihere because the unions fought his selection in 1999 – Helen Clark intervened – and the unions block-voted against Josie Pagani’s bid to become Labour’s candidate in the Mana byelection in 2010.

    Tamihere quite literally has a well documented pathological contempt for women – it’s not like his blaming the 13-year old for the gang-rape was some aberrant out-of-character episode caused by a over-long liquid lunch or emotional breakdown.

    Pagani has been championing Mr Front-Bums for years now, and quite frankly the only positive thing to come out of this whole mess is that she is being forced to confront her appalling record of championing him.

    Comment by Oh Busby — November 8, 2013 @ 2:52 pm

  76. C. Trotter is wheeling out a bait-and-switch over on Pundit.
    Apparently you hate his freedom based on differing ideological views, not underpinning cultural assumptions.

    Whod’ve thuk it.

    Comment by Gregor W — November 8, 2013 @ 3:10 pm

  77. Oh, for what it’s worth I do think that Chris Trotter could feel somewhat maligned by Danyl’s branding (invention out of whole cloth??) of a “Trotterist” faction supporting red-meat retorgrade views within the Labour Party.

    As long as I have read him Chris has celebrated political gains for the vulnerable and disenfranchised in our society, including issues of gender and sexuality. Where Chris has expressed frustration over the past few years is in Labour’s choosing to champion valid identity issues, while choosing to ignore valid class issues such as Clark entrenching Ruth Richardson’s sub-poverty-level benefits and leaving vulnerable workers living lives of deprivation and hardship.

    In my opinion, if “Trotterism” were to be a school of thought in the Labour Party, it would be to reject the status quo of 3rd Way politics, while still embracing social changes championed by that movement. Pretty much were Cunliffe seems he wants to steer the party.

    Tamihere, for his many faults, is concerned about Maori people living lives of poverty in suburban Auckland. And this is a constituency that the last Labour government failed to help.

    Comment by Oh Busby — November 8, 2013 @ 3:30 pm

  78. Where Chris has expressed frustration over the past few years is in Labour’s choosing to champion valid identity issues, while choosing to ignore valid class issues…

    Sure. However, I think this applies applies only if you consider red-meat retrograde views (nice phrase btw) grist for the electoral mill versus firmly held beliefs. I’m not sure which is more distasteful, frankly.
    Also, I don’t see how one can easily separate deeply misongynistic views from larger class issues. In that respect, whats makes anti-female rhetoric any different from say, anti-Maori or anti-immigrant rhetoric?

    C. Trotter knows this so I’m surprised he hasn’t cotton on.

    It’s all about blaming the ‘other’ for their own misfortune while conveniently avoiding questions of context; it’s consistently the most effective weapons of class war that our lords and masters encourage us to use against each other. Why get your hands dirty when you can incite the plebs to do it against themselves?

    Comment by Gregor W — November 8, 2013 @ 3:58 pm

  79. Gregor I don’t think Trotter goes so far as to endorse red-meat retrograde views – I can’t think of an occasion where he has endorsed anti-women (let alone anti-Maori or anti-immigrant views). He has expressed anti-3rd way views, and he has expressed disappointment that the last Labour Government fought battles on issues of gender and identity while ignoring profound issues effecting the working class.

    Should you have one handy then I’d love to find a passage of his where he asks for women, gays and other minorities to sit down and shut up until the workers control the means of production.

    Comment by Oh Busby — November 8, 2013 @ 4:53 pm

  80. Josie Pagani has responded … by not answering.

    http://www.pundit.co.nz/content/roast-busters-horror-reveals-ugly-politics

    Again, she reaches for the red herrings: “ban” and “shut down”.

    It’s incredibly simple, Josie, so why can’t you answer? I don’t think a citizen should be told they are not allowed to say what John Tamihere has said (obnoxiously, and repeatedly). I do think a Labour CANDIDATE should.

    I have the right to apply for a job, and I have the right to shout crazy stuff in the job interview. I don’t have the right to be given the job, regardless of my crazy shouting. The Labour Party has the right to say “No thanks”, and I think that’s exactly what they should say.

    Josie’s view remains a mystery.

    Comment by sammy 2.0 — November 8, 2013 @ 4:56 pm

  81. Should you have one handy then I’d love to find a passage of his where he asks for women, gays and other minorities to sit down and shut up until the workers control the means of production.

    While not endorsing retrograde views, I think Trotter goes some way to suggesting they be co-opted for electoral gain cf. “Waitakere Man”.

    Which is pretty cynical IMO.

    Comment by Gregor W — November 8, 2013 @ 5:08 pm

  82. I’m not seeing it, though I’m happy to review my opinion if anyone can furnish some evidence to support your thesis.

    It’s possible to walk and chew gum at the same – to address issues of economic inequality and and identity-based discrimination (for instance) at the same time. Inarguably the last two Labour governments failed to serve the economic interests of their constituency and criticism of the party for that doesn’t necessarily mean a repudiation of other work they did.

    My opinion of Trotter has slowly become more nuanced. What can I say, he is an an older white man cut from trade union cloth, with a traffic-cop mustache no less, and I was presuming the jokes about his response to Labour’s Man-Ban would write themselves. http://thedailyblog.co.nz/2013/07/05/the-high-peaks-of-principle-thoughts-on-labours-man-ban/

    Comment by Oh Busby — November 8, 2013 @ 7:17 pm

  83. Should you have one handy then I’d love to find a passage of his where he asks for women, gays and other minorities to sit down and shut up until the workers control the means of production.

    Will this do for starters?

    http://bowalleyroad.blogspot.co.nz/2009/11/liberal-left-who-needs-you.html

    It was a theme of his for quite some time, so I’m sure there’s more.

    Comment by Pascal's bookie — November 8, 2013 @ 7:24 pm

  84. And be sure to read the comments, where he really gets his rant on for the damnable identity politics that have been holding the left back.

    And then click on the ‘newer post’ button at the end of comments, and watch what the cat drags in.

    Comment by Pascal's bookie — November 8, 2013 @ 7:33 pm

  85. In this one he argues that abortion reform must not be mentioned because it would endanger everything the left holds dear, or some such shit:

    http://bowalleyroad.blogspot.co.nz/2011/03/harping-on-about-abortion-issue.html

    Comment by Pascal's bookie — November 8, 2013 @ 7:39 pm

  86. Ahhh, there it is, our old friend “traffic cop” Trotter – his reaction to Goff’s “Nationhood” was a particularly disappointing time. Too true.

    From the comments:

    Trotter: Running through all of the postings I’ve linked to is exactly the sort of knee-jerk liberal orthodoxy which has plagued the New Zealand Left since the early 1980s.

    Its ideological roots descend into the swamp of identity politics and the New Social Movements which were at that time engaged in tearing apart the complex web of personal and political relationships that made up the traditional labour movement.

    The NSMs bear prime responsibility for the demise of genuine working-class politics and its replacement with what we have today – a Labour Party and trade union bureaucracy thoroughly dominated by middle-class liberals weaned on the identity politics of the past quarter-century.

    Goff’s social origins and political instincts place him at odds with this narrow, but extremely vocal, minority. As does Labour’s urgent need to strip 10 percentage points off the National Party. (That’s 200,000 voters, Robert – roughly 40 x what I would generously estimate to be the total number of liberal leftists in the whole country!)

    Goff’s only viable electoral strategy is to jettison these pampered ideological passengers from Labour’s waka.

    Leave them for the Greens to pick up. They will have no difficulty whatsoever in recognising so many bedraggled soulmates.

    And, fear not, I take no offence at all at being christened “the scourge of the Liberal Left”.

    His criticism of Labour for abandoning “genuine working-class politics” is certainly valid. His solution to “jettison pampered ideological
    passengers” [everone except white working men?] certainly wasnt.

    Comment by Oh Busby — November 8, 2013 @ 7:56 pm

  87. Which was sort of my point. Trotter can’t help but see class struggle through the lens of a middle aged white bloke. Which is all well and good but isn’t necessarily all that representative.

    His solution, predictably is to attract more people to the NZLP that are……him. The odd thing is that for an undoubtedly clever man, he can’t see this as projection of his dissatisfaction. Indeed, he accuses others of this projection bias when criticised.

    With a few honourable exceptions, this appears to be what happens to middle aged, white, Socialists. They get Hitchens disease.

    Comment by Gregor W — November 8, 2013 @ 8:38 pm

  88. To be fair to Trotter, the delusion that “The issues I care about must be the REAL issues because I am too intelligent and wordly to care about them purely for self interested reasons” is kind of endemic.

    Comment by Hugh — November 8, 2013 @ 8:58 pm

  89. Trotter can’t help but see class struggle through the lens of a middle aged white bloke.

    All missionaries are snobs to some degree. Also most opportunist weasels.

    Comment by Joe W — November 8, 2013 @ 9:50 pm

  90. Okay this time, damn no edit function- the first two links are to Will Ferrell’s Bat Fight…

    Comment by sheesh — November 9, 2013 @ 1:30 am

  91. grr…worst blog comment posting thing ever- this is supposed to be from 2:34 in…

    Comment by sheesh — November 9, 2013 @ 1:31 am

  92. I agree with Sanctuary that young people are only acting out in an adult-designed and created society which has objectified women to such an extent that they are considered mere sexual pawns for mens’ gratification.

    Ironic that – Tamihere, Just a month or so ago was talking about running for Mayor of Auckland. If only he had eh?

    It’s hardly fair to infer that there is something this pernicious and it can be implicated and called ‘Trotterism’. However, it’s amazing where and when the cavalry turn up and how hot under the collar can get one week and how strangely silent another when a discussion about gynaephobia is on the table (if you’ll excuse the imagery).

    This is my take on Sanctuary’s observation that it is hardly suprising that young people act as they do when they have adult role-models of the calibre we thoughtlessly supply them with.

    Comment by Lee C — November 9, 2013 @ 6:52 am

  93. “…The core tenet of Trotterism is that identity politics isn’t important, and if that faction in the party had its way they’d have a welfare spokesman who thinks that young girls who drink alcohol deserve to be gang-raped…”

    I wasn’t going to reply again in this thread, but it’s development into a discussion of Danyl’s misrepresentations and his appalling use of this issue as an opportunistic chance to paint his ideological enemies as mere fellow travellers of rapists means it has continued to rankle me all week.

    First of all it is not a “core tenet of Trotterism” – or any “ism” on the left “…that identity politics isn’t important…”

    Many on the left argue that “identity politics” in far too many cases became a substitute for economic justice, with racial and gender movements led by the liberal middle-classes focusing entirely on issues of identity at the expense of economic justice. Since the middle class is always by definition winners from the existing economic hegemony, the argument goes that when those concerned with economic justice seek truly left wing solutions they will be betrayed by the liberal middle class, who will always side with right wing authoritarianism when their social status and economic power is threatened.

    Secondly, “Trotterism” is not the same as the vapid third way Blairism of Paganiism, which is just wishy washy nonsense, a hollow shell of managerialist jargon obscuring an empty interior of political cynicism. Paganiism presents political power to the left as a poisoned chalice – you’ve had to compromise so much to achieve power there is nothing you can do with it once you have it. Paganiism is not a “left wing” ideology – it is a middle class ideology designed to act as a fig leaf for liberal inaction.

    My view is Trotter blames gender and racial “identity politics” as a distraction from centrality of the class war. The capture of the left by middle class liberals means the class war is only being waged by one side – the plutocrats – whilst the notional left, safely employed in good professional jobs – implicitly endorses the status quo. This “left” has neither the inclination nor the stomach for a real fight with the plutocrats. I imagine Trotterism would argue the struggle for labour rights and economic justice should take precedence over racial and gender justice because racism and sexism have been subsumed to a large extent within the class struggle. When the sailors are in charge of the battleship Potemkin, the rising tide will lift them all to freedom, regardless of gender or race.

    But struggles for class and economic justice, and racial and gender justice do not exist in a zero-sum relationship. They are complementary and cumulative. Treating the relationship between these struggles as zero-sum undermines each one. Treating them as mutually reinforcing, as natural allies in a larger fight for justice, on the other hand, creates a whole greater than the sum of its parts. In an ideal world, the debate on the left between identity politics and class struggle should be about emphasis, not legitimacy.

    To my mind, where identity politics and class struggle fall down is the basic lack of goodwill they display towards each other. These days, with most of the wingnut Marxists having given up and joined ACT, this is lack of goodwill is mainly from the identity politics side of the debate. A good example is Public Address, a website whose whole tone is to routinely take a dismissive and patronising attitude to anyone who dares question their smug, soft middle class liberalism. Danyl’s post is a great illustration of this tradition – a sneering, dismissive and patronising middle class attack on another point of view that he doesn’t like. Nothing is as intolerant as the liberal middle class when questioned. It is this dismissive and patronising attitude that provides a deep well from which right wing populism can draw support amongst working class New Zealanders.

    To that end, I think the liberal left needs a good kick up the arse, and good start would be Danyl reolving to be more measured in how he describes Chris Trotter in the future.

    Comment by Sanctuary — November 9, 2013 @ 10:01 am

  94. What Sanctuary said.

    Comment by paritutu — November 9, 2013 @ 11:04 am

  95. Let’s face facts – Danyl should stick to satire.

    Comment by Ross — November 9, 2013 @ 11:06 am

  96. @Ross,

    There is a massive, massive irony in you saying anyone should “face facts”, given the way you comprehensively misrepresented Jan Jordan in your comment at 59 above by claiming her research shows the exact opposite of what it actually does show.

    Actually, that’s not an irony. It’s just silly.

    Comment by Flashing Light — November 9, 2013 @ 11:27 am

  97. “this is lack of goodwill is mainly from the identity politics side of the debate”

    Fine then. You should have no problem pointing me to pieces from the liberal left saying that the party needs to move right on class issues then, that it is doing too much for the poor. That it is too strong in its support unions etc.

    I’d really like to see what you come with, because from my perspective, all I see of the debate its the other way around. Most of the most strident identity politicians are also well to the left of the party of worker and welfare rights as well.

    Comment by Pascal's bookie — November 9, 2013 @ 12:08 pm

  98. …this is lack of goodwill is mainly from the identity politics side of the debate.

    What was Trotters headline again? “The Liberal Left: Who Needs You?”
    Such good will!

    Comment by Steve — November 9, 2013 @ 12:57 pm

  99. Danyl has assumed, it seems, that rapes have occurred. That is far from clear.

    Not that far. The alleged perpetrators have assumed, it seems, that they are rapists.

    He also made the point that the focus on the “victim’s” behaviour is specific to sexual crimes. That is simply incorrect.

    That’s disingenuous. Danyl was, in context, clearly making a generalisation. The “I’m not blaming the victim, I’m just asking why a 13 year old girl . . .” stuff is very common among sexual assault crimes (especially male assaults female incidences, it seems).

    There are occasions where it happens with other types of crime, but it isn’t routine.

    This was just last month: http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11126771

    Comment by Steve — November 9, 2013 @ 1:11 pm

  100. *sorry, two months ago!

    Comment by Steve — November 9, 2013 @ 1:12 pm

  101. It’s Pagani and fellow travellers treating working class people as if they can’t chew gum and walk at the same time, as if they need the guidance and protection of university-educated lifestyle block owners.

    Comment by Sacha — November 9, 2013 @ 5:56 pm

  102. Posters who claim that the questions about the attacked person and their actions are normal are just wrong.

    Does anyone remember the case of the sexual predator in Auckland who was hooking up with much younger targets in the city, plying them booze, inviting them back to their’s, plying them illicit drugs, then spiking their drink to stupefy and rape them? I never encountered any such questions about why the attacked people would put themselves in that position, and that’s just as it should in that case and this case too, yet in this case there those questions are and that’s not as it should be.

    So what was the difference? Was age of the attacked people different in that earlier case? Yes, the people attacked by the earlier predators were adults rather than children. But that doesn’t really explain why; adults are supposed to have more sense, more discretion, be more clued up and better able to protect themselves than children. Mmmmm, I wonder why. Oh there was one other difference. Unlike these girls the people attacked in the earlier case were not in possession of a vagina when the assaults took place.

    When we don’t ask why an adult male would put themselves in this situation but we do ask about a 13 year old kid if they are female, I think it’s time for the people doing this to ask what it is really about.

    Comment by katie anderson (@7daykatie) — November 9, 2013 @ 6:25 pm

  103. To my mind, where identity politics and class struggle fall down is the basic lack of goodwill they display towards each other.

    This from the pretentious sociopath who emulates Tamihere by trapping and slaughtering his neighbours’ cats, then popping in here to boast about it. Of course the cats deserved to die because, as they were trapped on said sociopath’s wanky lifestyle block, therefore they must be middle class cats.

    Danyl’s analysis of the Trotterite mindset is pretty generous IMHO, as it barely touches on the cycle of self-loathing that drives its victims.

    Comment by Joe W — November 10, 2013 @ 3:04 am

  104. Flashing

    There’s no irony at all because I did not misrepresent Jordan’s research. May I suggest you read her ‘Beyond Belief’ and re-read 59. I will add that Jordan found, according to police, that only 21 percent of rape complaints were genuine, though that may be understated as other claims which could have been genuine could not be verified.

    Comment by Ross — November 10, 2013 @ 8:35 am

  105. “Three close friends of the Roast Busters sex gang say the group’s ringleaders exaggerated many of their sexual exploits to impress their classmates and were now living in fear of their lives due to the public’s reaction to the scandal…those in the group made up many of their claims about sex with drunk girls and never targeted those who were under-age.”

    http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/9383119/Friends-of-Roast-Busters-speak-out

    Comment by Ross — November 10, 2013 @ 9:27 am

  106. They would say that wouldn’t they Ross, now that they’re getting bad publicity for their “bragging”? I note the article says none of the close friends were actually present when the events in question took place so of course we should believe them over the word of people who were actually there.

    Comment by MeToo — November 10, 2013 @ 10:46 am

  107. I thought it was a bit rough to lay it on Trotter, just as Trotter and Sanctuary are similarly injudicious to blame all social ills on the only ally they have, the liberal left. Not sure how any of it’s relevant to teenage rapists and victims, but to someone holding a hammer, everything looks like a nail, I guess.

    In this discussion, class analysis is essentially worthless, and identity politics, in particular gender politics, are where all the work gets done. Rape is not a class issue.

    Comment by Ben Wilson — November 10, 2013 @ 1:12 pm

  108. @Ross,

    There’s no irony at all because I did not misrepresent Jordan’s research.

    Yes you did. You cited Jordan as if her research is support for claiming a large number of rape complaints are false in nature. Her research in fact is into the attitude of police towards such complaints, and why this hampers the proper investigation and prosecution of sexual offending.

    Sample quote from her “Beyond Belief” article: “While false complaints do occur, approximately three-quarters of the incidents concluded by the police to be false appeared to have been judged to some extent at least on the basis of stereotypes regarding the complainant’s behaviour, attitude, demeanour or possible motive.”

    So, again … you suggesting that anyone “face facts” would be funny, if it weren’t on such a serious topic.

    Comment by Flashing Light — November 10, 2013 @ 2:24 pm

  109. “Three close friends of the Roast Busters sex gang say the group’s ringleaders exaggerated many of their sexual exploits to impress their classmates and were now living in fear of their lives due to the public’s reaction to the scandal…

    That’s OK. In that case, they’re still wannabe rapists, who continued to delightedly portray themselves as such even after the Police cautioned them about the nature of the behaviour they were claiming to participate in. Now they’re being viewed by the world as they wanted to be viewed … and finding that it isn’t as funny as they thought.

    After all, if 13 year old girls can “bring it on themselves” by dressing sluttily and drinking too much, I’m not sure why these guys get to play the victim card when the consequences of their “impress[ing] their classmates” comes home to roost.

    Comment by Flashing Light — November 10, 2013 @ 2:31 pm

  110. Stephen J at 61,

    I find don’t contain that statistic…

    It’s a meaningless number he obtained by combining actual numbers in a dumb way. See pages 34 to 36 of your link. What he’s done is add the small figure for “Cases which the complainant said were false” (8%) to the larger figure “Cases which the police said were false” (33%) to get 41%.

    Ross at 105,

    Yes, you did misrepresent Jordan’s work. You seem to have completely misunderstood it. Your comment at 59 implied that the study concluded that there actually were 41% of false rape complaints. This is not something her work supports at all. (The work wasn’t even really about establishing the actual number of false complaints, other than to note it is a small amount.)

    There were only 8% of the cases Jordan looked at where the complainant said the allegation was false, which doesn’t sound very compelling, so you included another category that isn’t comparable. Jordan’s research is critical of the very assessments you’re referencing to bolster your numbers.

    (Also, even that 8% of the cases she looked at from 1997 is not 8% of all rape complaints in that year. She did not look at, for example, cases that went to trial. Plus, Jordan pointed out that even that 8% figure included cases that weren’t really a person admitting a false complaint, so it’s a deceptively high figure anyway.)

    So people are right to say you’ve taken research that undermines the very point you’re trying to make, and presented it as supporting it. Hence, misrepresentation.

    Comment by Steve — November 10, 2013 @ 3:10 pm

  111. > You cited Jordan as if her research is support for claiming a large number of rape complaints are false in nature

    Have you taken the time to read the research? I’ll repeat what I said earlier because it is spot on:

    “I note that several years ago Jan Jordan carried out research into rapes cases in NZ. She found that in 41% of complaints, the complainant admitted that they’d made a false complaint, or police determined the complaint to be false.”

    She also found that police considered 21% of rape complaints to be genuine….but that this could be lower than the actual number of genuine complaints.

    Comment by Ross — November 11, 2013 @ 3:40 pm

  112. @Ben Wilson “…I thought it was a bit rough to lay it on Trotter, just as Trotter and Sanctuary are similarly injudicious to blame all social ills on the only ally they have, the liberal left…”

    I think you missed my point, that we are actually all on the same side but as Danyl’s attack and the dismissive and patronising comments at 103 & 105 conveniently provide as proof of my case that the middle class liberal left all to often suffers from an over-weaning sense of it’s own infallability. No need to see anyone elses point of view if you are always right, I suppose.

    Comment by Sanctuary — November 11, 2013 @ 9:51 pm

  113. the dismissive and patronising comments at 103 & 105 conveniently provide as proof of my case that the middle class liberal left all to often suffers from an over-weaning sense of it’s own infallability.

    Proves nothing diddums,, except that you’re not psychic. FYI I got squeezed out of whatever middle class privileges I might have managed to get my grubby mitts on well over a decade a go, and I’ve been nursing a festering grudge ever since. There’s a certain amount of it out there, once you’re off the lifestyle block.

    Comment by Joe W — November 11, 2013 @ 10:22 pm

  114. And as I said, people are right to say you’ve taken research that undermines the very point you’re trying to make, and presented it as supporting it. Hence, misrepresentation.

    Comment by Steve — November 12, 2013 @ 12:23 am

  115. Previous comment aimed at 113 obviously.

    Comment by Steve — November 12, 2013 @ 12:25 am

  116. >the middle class liberal left all to often suffers from an over-weaning sense of it’s own infallability

    It’s a pretty common failing all round, especially amongst anyone leaning toward radical. The liberal left has been probably the most successful at guessing/driving the direction of social change, around the world. Too much success? But I think the answers to economic justice are not coming from there. I don’t know where they’re going to come from, but the concentration of wealth that’s happening ATM doesn’t fit a progressive narrative.

    Comment by Ben Wilson — November 12, 2013 @ 12:54 am


RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI

Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com 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 )

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s

The Rubric Theme. Blog at WordPress.com.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 420 other followers

%d bloggers like this: