If you go to Bob Jones’ latest article on The Herald, it might look a little different than it did this morning.
That’s because they’ve removed the section where he patted himself on the back for telling someone to commit suicide – who did.
The Herald’s response has been incredibly limp:
Editor’s note: This column has been amended following further consideration of Bob Jones’ comments. We apologise that the original column caused offence to some readers.
Further consideration, you note. So they’d already considered the column, and it took a lot of people on Twitter saying “Are you actually fucking kidding me?” for them to think that hey, maybe that wasn’t such a good idea.
And of course it’s the offence caused which is the problem. Not the fact that telling someone to commit suicide, and congratulating yourself when they do, is really fucking evil. We already have plenty of history to establish that the Herald’s editors don’t give a fuck about publishing Bob Jones’ thoughts on rape victims deserving it and burning women’s houses down because he doesn’t like their driving.
But here’s the thing: it’s also illegal.
Every one is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 14 years who—
(a)incites, counsels, or procures any person to commit suicide, if that person commits or attempts to commit suicide in consequence thereof; or
(b)aids or abets any person in the commission of suicide.
Bob Jones would appear to be ever so slightly in breach of the law – as well as a terrible person who will, if there is any god, spend eternity trapped in a hybrid car behind a woman driver.
For this little episode, he and the editors of the Herald are deemed Officially Scum.
[Trigger warning: sexual assault of a child]
That’d be the headline if Stuff had a single ounce of integrity. Instead, they’ve published an article which boils down to “oh noes, the poor man is left uncertain of his fate for a whole seven days, look at his fee-fees.”
The fate of his victim isn’t mentioned until you’re sixteen paragraphs in. But don’t worry, because in paragraph five, my new Official Scum member Judge Mark Perkins has already downplayed her trauma:
“There is an argument that the [psychological] effect on the child of the offending is a result not of the offending itself but the actual breakup of the family.”
Yeah. The breakup of her family because she was sexually assaulted by her mother’s partner. (It remains unclear to me if the victim is his biological daughter, signs point to no.)
You’ll remember the case from this post of September 2011. That’s where Judge Philippa “I like a good laugh” Cunningham refused to impose a sentence on him because he’s such an inspiration, and it was so tragic the way that his sexual assault of a child may have affected his career.
Sexually assaulting a kid SHOULD FUCKING WELL AFFECT YOUR CAREER. And you should also face some kind of actual punishment, you know. It’s not like any judge is going to let Mark Hotchin walk off just because “being publicly mocked by Hell Pizza is punishment enough.”
But no, after we’ve found one good judge (on ya, Judge Murray Gilbert) who can actually comprehend that
the consequences of a conviction did not outweigh the offending, … the judge did not take into account that the guilty plea meant the man had admitted he intended to carry out an indecent act on his daughter, and … the fact the man was drunk should not have been a factor in the original decision.
Now it’s back in the hands of someone who’s quite willing to think that maybe we should treat the obvious consequences of the offence as being the real problem.
There’s one chance for Judge Mark Perkins: it’s entirely plausible that Stuff have lifted their quote out of context, that it was part of a wider discussion, that it was followed with the phrase “but that argument is, in the opinion of the court, utter cack.”
I guess we’ll have to wait and see if some actual justice prevails.
The sentence is in on the anon Kiwi comedian accused of sexually assaulting his partner’s daughter.
Oh, did I say sentence? Because there isn’t one, because he’s just suffered so much already and we all need more laughter in our lives.
Basically, FUCK YOU, JUDGE CUNNINGHAM. Officially Scum, that’s what you are. You’ve even made me fucking agree with Garth McVicar and there’s no going back from that shit.
LudditeJourno has more. Big trigger warning for child sexual abuse and abuse apologism.
Bonus fuck-you: to whatever tragic sick fuck at stuff.co.nz entitled the article “Talent helps comedian get off sex act charge”. I realise y’all at Stuff are scum-sucking bottom-feeders desperate for pageviews, but you’re seriously going to Hell for that one.
This is a first, people. Today we award someone not merely the distinction of being Officially Scum; we have our inaugural Official Scum and Bar.
Not content with merely using gang-rape as a metaphor for being asked tricky questions, everyone’s favourite former-ACT-MP-and-hater-of-AZIAN-CRYME Deborah Coddington has outdone herself.
And she hasn’t even had the fucking guts to own her bullshit.
Finally, an expert on human nutrition brave enough to tell us what we don’t want to hear – it’s our fault if we’re fat.
[A]long came John Birkbeck of Massey University, adjunct professor in human nutrition, who told journalist Geraldine Johns in this newspaper: “You can’t get over-fat without eating more calories than you expend.”
And this: “You do not see fat people in concentration camps. Why? Because they get hardly anything to eat and they have to do a lot of work.”
National MP Maurice Williamson must be muttering into his whiskers. Two years ago he was pilloried for saying virtually the same thing: “If some people can’t lose weight no matter what, how come there were no fat people in Nazi concentration camps?”
Williamson was correct then, and Birkbeck’s correct now, but of course he’s already angered the Eating Difficulties Education Network.
I just think it’s really courageous for someone to not only tell fat people “hey, those Jews were all skinny and shit after forced labour in concentration camps under a fascist regime trying to exterminate their entire culture”, but to use quotes from other people to do it.
Coddington is of course full of shit:
Spokeswoman Maree Burns called Birkbeck’s comments “flagrant, inappropriate, intolerant and offensive”, adding “shaming and blaming people has never been effective”.
But actually it has. Look what we do to smokers. We treat them like lepers, forcing them out into the street, away from bars and restaurants. Two decades ago it was acceptable to smoke on planes, in offices and pubs. Now everywhere is proudly a smokefree environment.
And no one smokes any more, which would have been the conclusion if her argument were anywhere in the vicinity of Consistenttown.
But Coddington’s from a special school of thought, the kind that says “we need to get the homeless off our streets” not out of compassion but because they make the place look untidy. I don’t actually think she cares about health, or nutrition, she just doesn’t want to have to look at fat people because she thinks they’re icky.
Sidebar: Due to my strange obsession with Next Top Model in all its variations, this I found actually funny:
These days, it’s the skinny, flat-chested girls who are shamed on television modelling competitions. She must be anorexic, we gasp, if we see a hip bone or a rib.
Which is why NZNTM was won by a size 14 girl and Ruby, constantly pilloried for being a chub, was informed by Nigel Barker that she was 20 pounds too light for plus-size modelling.
Anyway, Coddington is clearly well-prepped for the assertion that she hates fat people, so like the real-life concern troll she is she’s quick to mention (on page 2):
I don’t mind if people are overweight. I don’t judge their personality by their size, but I care if they’re unhappy. I feel sorry for fat children if they’re bullied at school – they’ll feel miserable, be reluctant to do sport, eat more to compensate and so the vicious cycle begins until they become obese adults.
But molly-coddling won’t help. Tough love works with treating other addictions – we should use it on food addictions.
We’ve got a real “judging” meme going on this week. Coddington doesn’t judge you for being fat, she just knows (crystal ball? Power of Three?) that you must be unhappy about being fat, and you’re only fat because no one’s made you put down the Snickers and Coke.
I would direct Ms Coddington to the stellar works of Kate Harding or Marianne Kirby, but I don’t think she’d actually care to learn that being fat is not the end of the world and there is life after “normal”-size clothes.
And just to round things off, a few classics (I swear, Coddington’s been attending how-to-bingo-fat-people seminars or something):
So how about some incentives for losing weight? If you’re a smoker you pay more for life insurance because you’re a greater risk. But I don’t get any discount on my ACC levies or my medical insurance despite my BMI being 22.
If I fly with excess baggage I’m charged extra, yet the gut from the guy next to me could be rolling over the armrest into my seat, so why shouldn’t he pay extra for his 130kg of bodyweight?
Death camps, BMI and airline seats (which are, we all know, totally designed to be spacious and comfortable) all in one go. It’s how you spot the most-practised trolls, they produce such brilliant, perfect examples of hateful crap – but can’t resist nasty little shots right at the end:
Yes, I know why, because it would hurt his feelings. He has every right to be a big, fat slob. And people like me who don’t eat more than we need should just shut up and pay.
Yep, no judging fat people here, Coddington!
And if anyone’s gearing up to say “but she totally has a point!” I leave you with this excellent comment by Rachel at The F-Word:
If weight loss were as easy as controlling one’s environment and food intake, then why do people like her have to resort to using Jewish Holocaust death camps to “prove” their points. I mean, how much more ridiculously extreme can you get?
And just on that BMI thing?
Peyton Manning, quarterback for the Indianapolis Colts? 27.3 – overweight
Batista, current WWE champion? 33.5 – obese
Beatrice Faumuina, New Zealand Olympian? 36.5 – obese
Stacey Jones, Warriors halfback? 28.0 – overweight
Dan Carter, All Black and underwear model? 28.7 – overweight
Definitely people who should be paying higher health insurance premiums.
As seen at that bastion of journalistic integrity, the Sydney Morning Herald:
A 13-year-old girl who was violated by seven teenage boys – some of them dressed in school uniforms – was told to “smile like you’re enjoying it” as they took turns with her in a public toilet cubicle, a court heard today.
The girl had vaginal and oral sex in several different Sydney locations with the boys in acts that one teenager taped on his mobile phone and later sent to his friends.
THE WORD YOU ARE LOOKING FOR IS RAPE. THE WORD YOU ARE LOOKING FOR IS RAPE. THE WORD YOU ARE LOOKING FOR IS RAPE.
Yet more headline shenanigans:
Abortion laws threaten Catholic hospitals
I personally would have gone with
Catholic hospitals threaten to let women die to make a bullshit moral point
… but maybe that’s just me.
The Victorian Parliament is considering a Bill which would require medical practitioners, against their “conscientious objection” to abortion, to perform an abortion if necessary to save a woman’s life.
Obviously this kind of thing is not on.
THE Catholic Church’s extensive network of hospitals in Victoria faces a “real threat” from planned new abortion laws, Archbishop Denis Hart says.
He warned parishioners that Catholic-run hospitals might have to stop running conventional maternity and emergency services if Parliament passed the laws.
He warned in a pastoral letter that Catholic staff would face having to break the law if they wanted to maintain anti-abortion beliefs.
Bonus points for use of my personal favourite antichoicer slogan, “culture of death”.
More over at the Hoydens‘, but suffice it to say:
Archbishop Denis Hart, On the Charge of Taking “Prolife” Hypocrisy To Staggering New Levels of Stupid, you are Officially Scum.
Already thoroughly covered by Tane at The Standard and Russell Brown at Public Address: Stephen Franks’ comments, repeated multiple times, recorded on multiple occasions, that his opposition to gay marriage is at least somewhat grounded in the idea that “just because I love my dog doesn’t mean I should be able to marry it“; and the complaints, at this latest reporting of it, that he is being “taken out of context”.
Just one question.
Exactly what context could possibly exist to make “marrying a human of the same sex = marrying an animal” not offensive?
Because No Right Turn and Hard News have already covered the other salient points about Deborah Coddington’s … column – the “forgetting to mention you just made shit up to hate on Asians” thing, the “calling people “insane bloggers” ain’t exactly conducive to a quick chat-ette” thing, but I just want to pick up two of my personal bugbears:
It’s not a real apology if you say, “I’m sorry you were offended”. It’s really not. Because you’re making the offence not about your words/distortions/racist bullshit, you’re making it about the people who were offended by same, and implying that, “insane bloggers” that they are, they chose to be offended.
It’s the good old, “Such-and-such was raped” passive voice, and while I’m aware it’s a bit of a leap from “offence” to “sexual assault”, you already fucking went there, Deborah. Getting called on your racist, dog-whistle bullshit is
the media equivalent of a gang rape
Please add to your To-Do list:
- Learn some fucking empathy
- Learn how to fucking apologise
- If that’s too hard, don’t pretend to be “sorry”
- GO TO HELL.
And a New Rule: Anyone who uses “gang rape” as a metaphor for being asked difficult questions about your own actions is Officially Scum.