Tagged: law

Yes, Gordon Campbell, you’re a rape apologist

Gordon Campbell has made his third post in a row in which he treats the accusations against Julian Assange, and his own journalism!fail, so seriously they’re the second item in the column.

After explaining that his “comments policy” boils down to “I don’t have to engage with my audience, now I’ve made my declarations from on high you are permitted to talk amongst yourselves”, Campbell has a go at me.  Without being so open as to just name names, then people might actually look me up and see both sides of the story, which I understand is the most important thing in the world to him under other circumstances.

But since there’s still some apparent confusion, let me explain why Gordon Campbell is, indeed, a rape apologist.

From the most recent post:

I do not, and have not, absolved or condemned Assange’s personal conduct.

Gordon, you’re a rape apologist because you equate “accurately stating what the charges against Assange are” with “believing the charges against Assange”.  You’re a rape apologist because you are contributing to the narrative that says people who say they want Assange held to account in a court of law must actually be “assuming” he’s guilty – and therefore, obviously, are not worth listening to.

You’re also a rape apologist because you refuse to address the fact that his personal conduct involves not simply denying the charges and waiting for trial, but employing lawyers who have outright lied about the charges and allegations and continually fed into rape culture with their statements about the accusers.

In the second Wikileaks article, I repeated the gist of the accusations against Assange, and put them alongside the gist of his initial response in court to them. It was an attempt at balance, not to absolve the left’s golden boy of the hour.

You’re a rape apologist because you continue to pretend that the answer to “you have printed misinformation about the case” is “okay that bit was maybe kinda wrong but here’s their side of the story!”

You’re a rape apologist because you’re acting like accurate reporting of the accusers’ statements – not agreeing, not supporting, just stating what they have said and what the charges are – needs to be “balanced” by Assange’s [lying] lawyers’ statement.

Guess what, Gordon.  If the Herald prints that Remmers McFlorist won the Ellerslie Flower Show, and someone points out that actually, Flowers McArrangement won the Ellerslie Flower Show, it would be a bit fucking douchey if the Herald then printed, “Okay, okay, so we printed the wrong name, but here’s 500 words from Remmers McFlorist on why she SHOULD have won!”

That’s not balance, Gordon.  And Assange’s rebuttal is not actually relevant to you correcting and apologising for your misinformation – misinformation which was weeks out of date.  You’re a rape apologist because you have taken the lies of a “golden boy’s” lawyers at absolute face value over the statements of women You’re a rape apologist because you instantly believed that unprotected sex is a crime in Sweden (those silly liberals, eh?) and thus the charges must just be nothing that Real Countries would prosecute.*

From the second post:

I think Bianca Jagger’s piece in the Huffington Post explains why doubts exist about the sturdiness of the case against Assange …:

It is widely known that the complainants first approached the police because they wanted assistance in securing an STD test. Initially, there was no mention of pressing charges of rape, coercion or molestation. How did this escalate from a request for a test to an investigation of a criminal nature? Who made this decision? After considering the evidence, Eva Finne, a female Chief Prosecutor chose to dismiss the charges. The case was then taken up by a politician who was facing re-election and whose motive may be questionable. The matter was taken to a prosecutor in a different city where none of the events had taken place. Why was this done? Was any pressure brought to bear? These are the questions a truly committed investigative journalist should be asking.

Gordon, you’re a rape apologist because you uncritically post comments which criticise rape victims for not behaving the way they “should”.  You’re a rape apologist for posting comments which imply that the cases must be silly if a women lawyer dropped the charges initially.

Below that, you’re a rape apologist for posting the “gist” of the charges against Assange … a “gist” which just happens to omit that whole “tearing off somebody’s clothes”, “holding somebody down” aspect.  Funny how the charges, which you misreported, get given the “gist” treatment while the lying lawyers’ statement bullet points get the full “can I hold your coat while you take the stage, sir” rub-down.

Back to the latest post.

What I’ve said all along is that Assange’s personal conduct shouldn’t determine, one way or the other, how the revelations by Wikileaks are judged.

Gordon, you’re a rape apologist because you’re the one who keeps bringing up Wikileaks.  You’re the one who keeps waving the Wikileaks flag and you’re certainly fucking smart enough to know that waving that flag just keeps everyone conscious of the fact that Julian Assange is linked to Wikileaks, and Wikileaks is awesome, and the Powers That Be hate Wikileaks, and so we have to take accusations of rape with a grain of progressive dudebro-brand salt because HEY, WIKILEAKS!  DID I MENTION WIKILEAKS YET?

If you want the charges against Assange and the work of Wikileaks to be treated separately, maybe you could stop fucking playing the Wikileaks Is Important card every fucking time you are asked to report ethically on the charges against Assange.

You know what would be awesome and bold and courageous, Gordon?  If you had stood by your premise from the start:

Assange’s alleged sexual misconduct has managed to divert some media attention away from the content of the cables. The two things are – or should be – unconnected.

Who keeps connecting them, Gordon?  I’ll give you a clue:  it’s not the feminists who want rape charges treated seriously.  It could, you know, be Assange himself who wants to constantly remind us (when not playing the I Can’t Help It If I’m A Rocking Stud line) that there are powerful forces against him and that “CIA honeypot” is a real conspiracy-theory-tickler of a line.

But don’t think he’s done, people.

Yet at this point, Assange has to be presumed innocent until proven guilty of the charges against him.

Gordon, you’re a rape apologist because you have just busted out Rape Apologism Maxim the First.  Guess fucking what?  That’s a principle applicable to justice systems.  Is my blog a justice system?  Is media reporting a subset of the justice system?  And hang on, at what fucking point is accurate reporting of the nature of the charges tantamount to assuming guilt?  At what fucking point have I said “you have to assume he’s guilty”?  OH THAT’S RIGHT, NEVER.

We claim to want the same thing here, Gordon.  We claim to want to see these charges answered in court.  But because you’re a fucking rape apologist you aren’t waiting until the charges are answered in court, you are making statements right now that the charges are silly, the women didn’t act the way they should have, HAVE I MENTIONED WIKILEAKS IS IMPORTANT AND IMPLIED THAT THIS IS A CIA HONEYTRAP YET???

The Guardian’s actions in releasing part of the Swedish prosecutor’s file against him was – I thought – an injustice.

You’re a rape apologist, Gordon, because you think an “injustice” is having the facts of the case published AFTER Assange’s lawyers have lied about them, AFTER Assange’s lawyers have lied about the entire Swedish legal system, AFTER the accusers have been not only named but had their photos and addresses publicised and been FORCED INTO HIDING.

But sure, what the Guardian did was the “injustice” here (now you’ve gotten around to reading it).

I found it interesting that one commenter portrayed me as part of a gendered tendency to minimize women’s experience and testimony in sexual complaints, while also denigrating me for linking to Bianca Jagger

Don’t worry, Gordon, this one isn’t about you being a rape apologist.  This is about how you’re a misogynist douchebag for acting like quoting Bianca Jagger magically absolves you of your significant contributions to rape apologism.  You’re a misogynist douchebag for going on to say naming the accusers mustn’t be that bad because hey, these Famous Feminists totally did it – failing to mention that one had retracted those names until after the quote, which was even better for your argument what with it boiling down to “everyone else did it so I did it too”.  But as a bonus, you and Bianca Jagger are both rape apologists for pretending that criminal cases can never be re-opened unless Dark Forces Are At Work.

Then it’s a fine finish with a lather/rinse/repeat of “we can’t assume his guilt” [CITATION NEEDED] and a wonderfully oblivious expression of male privilege:

Personally, I do find it depressing that so much energy has been spent on Assange’s actions in bed and so relatively little on the morality exposed in the Wikileaks cable

WHY AREN’T THE WIMMINZ INTERESTED IN REEEEEEEAL ISSUES??  Oh, and Gordon?  You’re a rape apologist for spending so much time pretending to care, so much time claiming it was about balance and fairness and did you mention Wikileaks … and then you fucking write off rape allegations as “Assange’s actions in bed”.

Gordon, you’re a rape apologist because you continue to make excuses for the fact that you spread misinformation.  You’re a rape apologist because you pretend that factual reporting of charges requires a critique-free rebuttal.  You’re a rape apologist because you have continued to downplay the charges and continued to privilege Assange’s side of the story.  You’re a rape apologist because you have on multiple occasions, contributed to a culture which denigrates rape victims and treats rape as far less serious than other crimes.

You’re a rape apologist because every single thing you have said over three columns is straight out of the rape apologism playbook.

I can’t think why Polanski-defenders came to mind in light of all that.


*Protip, Gordon:  most countries are pretty shit at even prosecuting “real” rape cases.

Many links sourced from megpie’s excellent round-up.

How could this possibly go wrong? Cops with guns / Greg O’Connor needs to fuck off edition

The horrendous attack on Senior Constable Bruce Mellor has conveniently been used as an excuse to call for wider arming of our police.

And God forbid our media actually subject this idea to basic logical analysis (even when the Police Commissioner himself seems to get it.  Doesn’t stop him calling for more guns in cop cars though.)

So here it is, as simply as I can put it.

Scenario 1:  Bruce Mellor has gun in lockbox in car.  He doesn’t get it out because it’s a basic freaking traffic stop.

Bruce Mellor still gets attacked from behind by young thugs with a machete, Bruce Mellor still ends up in hospital.

Scenario 2:  Bruce Mellor gets gun out of car for routine erratic-driving stop.

We now live in a South Africa-esque environment where cops treat every interaction with civilians as a potential gunfight.  Young people who are randomly and viciously violent continue to be randomly and viciously violent towards lone cops.

Scenario 3:  Bruce Mellor doesn’t pull his gun at every opportunity, but vicious youths in car are “more aware” that as a cop he may be armed.

Apparently this is the entire point of giving cops more access to guns.  Congratulations, O’Connor, Broad and Collins, because in this one the attackers don’t reach for a machete, they get their own guns and shoot Bruce Mellor in the back.

Scenario 4:  Greg O’Connor/Judith Collins fantasyland edition

Citizens are humbled by authority of mighty police force!  Curfews for all!  Bow before your uniformed gods lest they smite you down!  Paradise on earth ensues, at least for smug white privileged people!  New Zealanders “grow up” and just come to accept Police shootings so Greg O’Connor’s gun/authority-boner may be satisfied!  Beatings shall continue until morale improves, and then having been demonstrated an effective morale-booster shall continue on!  ALL HAIL GLORIOUS POLICE STATE OF AOTEAROA/NEW ZEALAND, LAND OF THE LONG WHITE PEPPER-SPRAY RESIDUE.

A different, whiter, richer type of offender

Bruce Emery is to be released from prison after serving two years.

Which seems totally reasonable seeing as all he did was get a knife, chase down a teenager evil Satan-worshipping vandal, and stab him to death.

At least, the hang-’em-high-and-throw-away-the-key lobby thinks so.


Sensible Sentencing Trust head Garth McVicar – who usually backs the victims of crime – supported Emery’s early release.

He said Emery had to “pay a price for what he did” but the 52-year-old was a “different type of offender”.

“I didn’t think he should have gone to jail,” said Mr McVicar.

“That young offender [Pihema] had been doing graffiti before and Emery had been becoming extremely frustrated with it.

Extremely frustrated.

Let’s think about that for a minute, kiddies.

Garth McVicar –  who talks the big talk about victims living in fear and crimewaves crashing over the country in a suspiciously Polynesian-looking tsunami – sees no fucking problem with Bruce Emery walking the streets.

He takes no issue with letting a man, who cannot control his frustration, whose temper is on such a hair trigger that he stabbed a teen to death for tagging a fence, roam the streets of New Zealand.

Bruce Emery killed Pihema Cameron over a fucking fence.  He chased him down and killed him.  Over a fucking lick of paint.  And he has just been informed by our justice system and our biggest, most self-righteous crusader against crime, that what he did was not that bad.  That he was justified in killing a fifteen-year-old over a fucking tag.

Boy, I know I feel safer right now.

Guns don’t kill people, stupid fucking yobs kill people

Fundy Post has the word on a particularly grotesque piece of “journalism” related to the shooting of Rosemary Ives.  I’ll let him sum up:

He was so keen on shooting harmless animals that he went out one night and killed a harmless human being. And don’t forget that shooting from a public road at night on DOC land is dangerous and illegal.

And even other hunting enthusiasts think you’re a fucking tosser if you do it.

Where I get steamed over the Meng-Yee “article” is where apparently, we are meant to somehow overlook the completely predictable, negligent killing of another human because the tool who did it ticks all the right boxes in the eyes of patriarchy / NZ bloke culture.

Andrew Mears is a caring and thoughtful man, and a great father to their 15-month-old son

This is especially admirable because of course men don’t ever care about their offspring, especially at the gross pukey bobble-headed stage.  And a son!  SURELY, JUSTICE SYSTEM, YOU WOULD NOT DEPRIVE A SACRED BOY-CHILD OF HIS STRONG MALE ROLE MODEL (who likes hunting and shooting people, like a Real Man).  DON’T TURN THIS SACRED BOY-CHILD INTO A GAY, JUSTICE SYSTEM!!!

If you are a friend of Andrew’s you are a friend forever.


He loves getting out with our son, loves the outdoors. He has always been keen on camping and tramping .


We love spending time with our son, we love taking the dog for a walk, we love seeing family at the beach.

Family man!  They go to the beach!  He’s totally normal, and it’s totally normal to be a bloke and a bit of a tool and kill people make mistakes!!!

You know from the day I met Andrew I knew he was going to be an amazing father.

Fortunately she’d read that month’s Cosmo and knew how to Not Frighten Men Off By Mentioning Babies On A First Date.  But he was totally her Mr Right.  Don’t destroy their perfect romantic true love!

And he has really supported me. … I recently went through post-natal depression

He’s a bloke who was even supportive during weird girly hormonal shit!  And you know, I would totally praise Andrew Mears for that, if Brooke Mears didn’t go on:

but something like this puts your problems into perspective you know.

You KNOW?  I TOTALLY know, right, I mean, sure I was depressed but at least some fucking tool didn’t kill me while I was at a conservation campsite because he and his mates had no fucking impulse control.

And also?

the hardest part for me is knowing my darling husband has caused so much pain


This is the flip side of the coin to articles which will wax lyrical about what a rape victim wore, how much she had drunk, where she was and how she was Clearly No Lady.  And just like those things don’t actually matter because another person had to make a decision to rape someone, it does not actually matter that Andrew Mears is a Good Lad from a Good Family who Has A Wife And Child To Support.

He was a fucking tool and he fucking killed someone.  End of.  I am sorry for Brooke Mears, because it cannot be easy being married to a fucking tool who has killed someone and Goddesses know it’s got to be shitty facing your partner going to prison when you’ve got an infant to take care of.

But I have to raise a cynical eyebrow at shit like this:

He is the last person ever you could imagine going anywhere near prison.

Why’s that, Ms Mears?  Because he’s white, middle-class, heterosexual?  Because he’s a Nice Young Man from a Good Family?  He shot someone.  While, to re-quote the Fundy Post, shooting from a public road on DoC land.  Um, in our society we have these things called “laws”, and when you break them, and someone dies, you’re a criminal.  But I’m sure the Nonsensical Sentencing Trust would totally agree with you.

And, you know, at least Ms Mears is focusing on the real tragedies.

What has been on my mind is that Rose will never have the opportunity to get married and have children.

And thus basically her life was probably a complete waste of time and the Patriarchy Directorate will be erasing her name from the Book of Worthy Females directly.

We are not seeking pity.

…  Yes, yes you are.  I’m sorry, Ms Mears, but I haven’t seen a pity-grab so disingenuous since Tony Veitch’s “I make no excuse, except to say” fuckwittery.

Douchebag “hunter” kills innocent human by ignoring all basic safety and legal considerations.  And somehow, Granny Herald turns it into the perfect storm of patriarchy fail.  Gold star!

Remedial victim blaming 101

Boganette has had a hell of a week and has decided to visit aggravation on the rest of us with a roundup of marvellously rage-inducing links. (Love ya, B!)

And one in particular gave me a massive sense of deja vu – back to this post on THM, which travelled back in time to steal the original title of this post.

Because yet again a police officer is saying that a man’s violent [and thankfully not fatal in this case] attack against a woman was somehow “preventable” had she acted differently.

And on Deborah’s post people swore up-and-down that this wasn’t victim blaming, the police were just frustrated, they can’t act if they don’t know what’s going on, and anyway women do need to act in a certain way and it totally is their fault because they chose to stay with an abuser I mean come on!

So now it’s happened again, let’s try to hammer some sense into those people’s brains.

First up?  Yeah, the police kinda knew something was up.

Mr Sneddon said police had been to previous domestic violence matters at the house and the victim was lucky not to have more serious injuries or worse.

The police are, in fact, familiar enough with the nature of this particular abusive relationship to know that it could have been worse.

Still, if we’re going to completely ignore basic facts of human psychology and the economic and social dependency women are placed in by a patriarchal society that pays us shit and demands we produce a new generation of GDP-creation units and refuses to support us even when we do everything right, and a history of treating women as the possessions of men and a culture with a deeply insecure, desperate attachment to promotion Manly Manly Masculinity … just, you know, putting all that to one side, maybe it’s just totally reasonable to point out that the victim could have gone somewhere for help.

And maybe it’s possible that someone could express that without coming off like  a judgemental asshat who is, in fact, blaming the victim for getting herself attacked.

“That help could come from family, police, Women’s Refuge or the multitude of other government and non-government organisations dedicated in helping people suffering from family violence.”

But clearly not in this case.

Hear that, silly little women?  There are a multitude of organisations out there to help you!  A multitude!  It’s amazing that anyone ever gets abused when there is just so much going on out there to help you!  Surely the only reason women are still dying every five weeks at the hands of their partners or former partners is because they’re just stupid and probably asking for it!

Which is obviously not to blame them, of course.  Just to say it’s their fault.

Oh, and just in case you weren’t convinced that this particular woman is totally the real villain here?  After Mr Sneddon is done touting the multitude of agencies out there, and the terrible statistics of the numbers of women and children killed in our country on a regular basis?

“There were young children at this address where the incident occurred.”

Now in an article that had spent as much time discussing the actions of the abuser, the guy who stabbed someone 14 times, the perpetrator of repeated violence according to the Police, as this one has on lecturing a hospitalised woman about Doing It Wrong?  I might buy that this quote has anything at all to do with concerns about the children being potential victims of a violent abuser.

In this case?  Yeah, if you’re not also getting a “she failed in her Sacred Duty to Protect Her Young, the bitch” vibe off this you should check the batteries on your fuckwittery detector.

Especially given his parting shot:

“we can’t do it alone and we can’t take action in relation to incidents we don’t know about, the key thing is to let someone know.”


police had been to previous domestic violence matters at the house

police had been to previous domestic violence matters at the house



I’m sorry your life is so fucking hard, Mr Sneddon.  I’m sorry that some woman lying in hospital with a punctured lung is making you feel bad because our entire fucking society has conspired against her and now you have to do some fucking paperwork on a known violent man.

And seriously?  I get that you find it frustrating and I get that the cops get a lot of flack when they don’t actually have the power to arrest people On Very Good Hunch Of Being A Dickwad.  I get that it pisses you, and a lot of other people, off when victimised women don’t act the way you think they should, the way you totally know you would act in a situation you’ve never fucking been in.

But that doesn’t excuse blaming a woman for a man’s decision to stab her, and that doesn’t make your victim-blaming magically Not Victim Blaming because you totally just feel exasperated and things are so difficult some times.

Principles:  they’re those things that don’t mean shit if you abandon them when they’re hard.

Just in case you were going to call anyone a “hysterical feminist” in the near future

Stargazer at THM very nicely sums up the recent case of an employer who explicitly refused to hire a person because of her gender.

In the comments (which include the usual Why Can’t I Just Do Whatever I Want, Why Can’t I Get A Job In A Women’s Gym suspects) someone asks:

What gets me is he could have just not told her why he wasn’t hiring her. So why did he?

Indeed, the entire case comes down to the fact that this guy basically spelled it out:  “I’m not hiring you because you are a woman and I want to hire a guy [insert “team dynamic” “not a sexist honest” excuses here.”

Why would he do such a thing?  Women get turned down for jobs and promotions every day without being able to nail the bastard to the wall with his own overt sexism (not to mention similar cases for people of colour, people with disabilities, queer folk, trans folk …)  Why would this guy just step right into it with such an admission?  In writing, for goddess’ sake?

Here’s a bit of a revelation for any doubters and fence-sitters and people who generally think feminism’s done its dash and why are you so angry, come on, no one really discriminates against women these days!:

They do.  Some people do, still, sincerely believe that women are less than men, cannot relate to men, cannot do the same jobs as men*.  And not only do they believe these things, they are quite willing to say them, and quite willing to act on these beliefs, and would you credit it, they are, in fact, surprised when an authority figure turns around and says “Bad misogynist, no cookie.”

It does not require elaborate conspiracy theories or delusions of persecution or a martyr complex to know that women are oppressed, and women are denied equal opportunity, and let’s not even go near equal outcomes, with men.

Monte Wells is just clueless enough to be honest about his sexism.  How many guys do you think aren’t?


*Anyone tempted to whinge about greater upper body strength etc can go sit in the corner and have a lesson with Beth Phoenix.


Without formally committing to NaBloPoMo, largely because of its awful acronym, I’m setting a casual “30 posts in 30 days” goal for myself.  I do not guarantee they will be quality posts, nor that I won’t just post pictures of Natalya Neidhart to get my count up.

Hey now, heeeeeey noooooow

I’m going on hiatus for a wee while as of this weekend.  In the meantime, here’s a dose of QoT rage to keep you warm.

Someone drop me an email if Gerry Brownlee reinstitutes the death penalty or anything.



More at The Standard

The Holy Piscine Emperor Scott puts it pictorially

And Russel Norman has a whinge* (notice the wonderful use of the active voice in the title, as though he were merely an observer)

My comment at frogblog (with all the naughty words spelled out in full, this is after all my cuss-filled sandbox) reproduced below in full because I’m smug.


I apologise in advance if this gets a little potty-mouthed, but I am frankly p!ssed off.

If the Green Party’s MPs honestly could not find a simple, soundbite-friendly way to explain not supporting this Bill (how about, “We don’t think it’s a good idea to give Gerry Brownlee the power to make murder legal”?  How about, “We would support any Bill which is actually about helping Canterbury, this Bill is about giving Gerry Brownlee dictatorial powers.”  THERE YOU GO, NO CHARGE), then what the flying f#$% are you doing in politics?

And for all the bloody media-would-bag-us apologists … let’s pretend it’s September 2011.  Or even June 2011, given some people’s predictions.  What do you think is going to cost more voters – having voted against a foregone conclusion a year earlier, or having every party (including Labour!) and pundit being able to say “Well you can’t really complain about Gerry Brownlee violating human rights, you voted for it.”

Frankly, FUCK your principled speeches.  No one is going to look at your speeches when Gerry Brownlee declares a thousand-year ECan Reich, they’re going to say “well, if you didn’t want him to have this power you shouldn’t have voted for him to have this power.”

Actually, though, it’s probably a good thing that no one will look at your speeches.  Then they’ll realise you’re a pack of hypocrites as well as cowards (and really, really sh!t political players).


So who the fuck can I vote for now?


*At this point I should add the disclaimer that I recently re-stumbled on Maia’s excellent post on why she ain’t voting Green any time soon so was already a wee bit pissed off at the ginger bastard.

If we tell them about it it’ll just encourage them

After all, it’s not like incubators people women should possibly be aware of all their options.  Not if a qualified professional licensed practitioner person with personal religious beliefs disagrees with one of those options, anyway.

That seems to be the basis of a legal challenge to new Medical Council guidelines which would force Good Christian Soldiers to Mercilessly Slaughter the Unborn – I’m sorry, they would

[require doctors] to tell patients having doubts about a pregnancy that abortion is one of the options

Well fuck.  That’s terrible.  I mean, forcing medical professionals to make a statement of fact about the existence of a medical procedure?  I am aghast.  Such an imposition!  Such an inconvenience!  It’s like those bastards at the Medical Council think these people trained to offer medical advice!

Deborah puts it with less snark:

[The subtext of this challenge] says that they will make moral decisions for their patients, because women can’t be trusted to make those moral decisions themselves.

Now wait.  Maybe I’m jumping to conclusions, I mean, I’m not a doctor, obviously, I’m just a currently vacant uterus woman.  Maybe this “abortion” thing is some kind of drastic procedure, involving expense and trauma and danger?

Well, maybe if you’re the person getting it, especially if you’re not blessed to live in a major metropolitan centre of NZ or if you find the prospect of having to justify your reproductive choices to not one but two consultants who, if you’re lucky, will interpret “mental health” widely and help you circumvent decades-old patriarchal bullshit.

Having to sit there and admit to a person in your medical care that yes, there is an option legally available which you personally would not choose?  Cry me a fucking river.

And I’m speaking here as someone who went to a Catholic fucking high school.  A high school where we were taught about contraception … and abortion.

And sure, our teacher stood at the front of the class and said “girls, I do not agree with abortion and the Church teaches that it’s wrong, and please don’t have sex and please don’t have abortions”, and sure other classes in my year got shown The Silent Scream (and were apparently so traumatized we didn’t get to see it), and sure the STD talk was accompanied with a “horrible infections you will get if your immune system is suppressed by AIDS” slideshow.  So we’re not talking objective information here.

But we still knew what our options were.  And when a few girls in my class were pregnant in the year following seventh form, and chose to have their babies, you know what?  I know that they were able to choose to have their babies.

And they didn’t need some fucking self-righteous morality-pushing douche abusing the privilege of being a medical professional treating them like they couldn’t be trusted with autonomy over their own bodies.

H/T:  The Hand Mirror

On the lighter side of things, Scott at Imperator Fish very nicely demonstrates why Jonathan “Concert FM is Radio Pyongyang with a harpsichord” Coleman’s suggestion that NatRad look at commercial sponsorship is a bad, bad, bad, bad thing.

Minor breakouts of major gripes

I’d long ago realised that part of the reason I post cussy rants about things that seem like just small issues, not a huge deal, isn’t there something more important to worry about – is because those “small issues” just tap into much bigger problems.

Today, two such small issues reared their annoying heads.

The continuing saga of Oh Noes The Brown Man Said A Mean Word broke out on Red Alert, with Hon Trevor insert-duck-to-water-metaphor-here Mallard chipping in to the debate:

If a Pakeha used the term brown mofos it would be racist.  That standard should apply both ways.

Which actually hits several big Pisses Me Right The Fuck Off buttons.  But to summarise:  using the argument of “the same standard” is so close to “one law for all” they couldn’t legally marry in all 50 states of the US.  It’s “special rights”, it’s “level playing field”, and it’s bullshit.

There isn’t a fucking level playing field when one group of people has been historically shat on by another from orbit.  There isn’t a tabula rasa of race relations where such lovely “can’t we all just be equals and ignore skin colour and historical disenfranchisement and oh we tried to destroy your language and culture” ideas can be writ large.

There is a basic reason why a person of Maori descent can refer to “white motherfuckers stealing our land” which does not hold true for a person of European descent saying “brown motherfuckers stealing our car”.  That reason is privilege.  Learn you some.

Second small issue:  in the continuing if-they-wrote-this-for-TV-no-one-would-believe-it tale of Doug Schmuck and some possibly-dodgy legislative drafting, one quote nicely put its thumb directly on my White Middle Class Bastards Who Just Love Law And Order Until It Applies To Them button.

The 15-year fight for the Opua boat ramp had taken “a hell of a lot of time” and cost Mr Schmuck close to $200,000. “A few objectors can run the costs up so high that it makes things like the Resource Management Act untenable,” he said.

Ah, yes.  You can always spot a WMCBWJLL&OUIATT, by the way they seem completely oblivious of the fact that the law still counts even when it might stop them from doing something they want to do.

The classic example is provided every time there’s a Police crackdown on speeding, possibly by, oh the horrors, using hidden speed cameras.  Now, you might think “well if people don’t want to get speeding tickets they could try not speeding”, but such thoughts do not pass through the brains of White Middle-Class Bastards. No no no, this is just a revenue gathering exercise.

It’s not like their own speeding could cause accidents or cost people their lives or anything.  We all know that speed only kills when it’s those bloody Asian homestay students whose rich daddies send them thirty grand a month to buy Ferraris and meth with, obviously.  The laws of physics are very specific on this.

The other classic, of course, is the killing of Pihema Cameron – where the Your Sensible Is Not Like Our Earth Sensible Sentencing Trust decided that actually, that whole “tough punishment for violent crims is the way to save society” line didn’t so much count when the stabber was a rich white guy and the victim was [insert stereotype about Maori teenage boys here].

And so we have (oh Gods it makes me giggle every time) Doug Schmuck.  Who has been nearly bankrupted, dear readers, by busybodies and that bane of the WMCB, the Resource Management Act.  All because he built a private fucking boat ramp on a fucking public reserve.

It’s almost like some people expect Good Hardworking [White Male] Businessmen to obey the law or something.  Don’t they understand the law is for the little people?