tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-177597562024-03-08T15:33:36.654+13:00Capitalism Bad; Tree Pretty<br>"The feminist agenda is not about equal rights for women. It is about a socialist, anti-family political movement that encourages women to leave their husbands, kill their children, practice witchcraft, destroy capitalism, and become lesbians."<br><br>Pat Robertson - 1992 Republican National ConventionMaiahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17212711843307060731noreply@blogger.comBlogger1050125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17759756.post-35792398360529941222014-03-04T01:17:00.001+13:002014-03-04T01:17:30.961+13:00The Oscars and violence against womenNumber of nominees for best director who offered their support and friendship to a man after he was arrested for raping a 13 year old girl: 3 (<a href="http://www.indiewire.com/article/over_100_in_film_community_sign_polanski_petition">Alexander Payne, Martin Scorsese, Alfonso Cuarón</a>)<br />
<br />
<div>
Number of winners who thanked men who have abused women: 1 (Cate Blanchett thanking <a href="http://kristof.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/02/01/an-open-letter-from-dylan-farrow/">Woody Allen</a>)</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Number of Oscar winners who offered their support and friendship to a man after he was arrested for raping a 13 year old girl: 2 (<a href="http://www.indiewire.com/article/over_100_in_film_community_sign_polanski_petition">Alfonso Cuarón, Paolo Sorrentino</a></div>
<br />
Number of nominees for best supporting actor who broke their girlfriend's nose: 1 (<a href="http://www.tmz.com/2010/03/23/inglourious-basterds-restraining-order-michael-fessbender/#ixzz0j3f8lAQT">Michael Fassbender</a>)<br />
<br />
Number of nominees for best supporting actor who have raped multiple women: 1 (<a href="http://aimmyarrowshigh.co.vu/post/23572924166">Jared Leto</a>)<br />
<br />
Number of nominees for best adapted screenplay who have sexually assaulted their relatives: 2 (<a href="http://kristof.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/02/01/an-open-letter-from-dylan-farrow/">Woody Allen</a>, <a href="http://www.chicagotribune.com/entertainment/sns-zap-ent-david-russell-groping,0,1079020.story">David O. Russell</a>)<br />
<br />
And that's without the men who were rumoured to have been violent towards their partners but I can't find a link (Bradley Cooper), the abusive men who presented (<a href="http://www.thesuperficial.com/bill_murray_beat_his_wife-05-2008">Bill Murray</a>) or the many many men who were more successful in silencing their victims. Woody Allen's abuse is most well known and his nomination was still applauded. So many in the industry have answered Dylan Farrow's question: "What if it had been your child, Cate Blanchett? Louis CK? Alec Baldwin? What if it had been you, Emma Stone? Or you, Scarlett Johansson? You knew me when I was a little girl, Diane Keaton. Have you forgotten me?" with a shrug.<br />
<br />
Hollywood is not exceptional - actors and directors are not exceptionally violent, or exceptionally prone to rape apology. The same level of violence against women has been present in the social circles I have moved in, and the industries I have worked in. There are generally fewer awards, and sparkly loaned jewellery outside of Hollywood - but the process whereby abusers are supported and accepted, and survivors are silenced and ignored is the same.<br />
<br />
I would like less celebration of Woody Allen, Michael Fassbender, Jared Leto, David Russell and Roman Polanski. I would like the rape apologia of Alfonso Cuarón, Alexander Payne, Martin Scorsese and Whoopi Goldberg (another presenter) to matter. But beyond Hollywood I'd like more people to think how not to be Cate Blanchett, how not to applaud abusive men, how not to cover up what they did.Maiahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17212711843307060731noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17759756.post-25396151779646877672013-11-08T02:50:00.002+13:002013-11-08T02:50:29.951+13:00Step by StepMy comrades and fellow writers, both here and around the internet have written really amazing things in response to the Auckland gang rapists, the horrific responses from the police and media, and how rape culture operates. I have things I want to say, about the police and about what has given me hope, but I don't think I'll write them soon.<br />
<br />
But tonight my Mum asked me what she could do - she said that that everyone she was talking to had said 'Things have to change after this'. And I believe that too, but they'll only change if we make that happen. I told her I'd send her a list of things that people were doing - this is that list (hyperlinks generally go to facebook pages with more information).<br />
<br />
**************<br />
<br />
Saturday 16th of November is a national day of action against rape culture, called in response to these events. There are organising meetings tomorrow (Friday 8 November) night in Auckland and Wellington:<br />
<br />
The <a href="https://www.facebook.com/events/730636953631852/?ref_dashboard_filter=calendar">Wellington meeting</a> is 6pm at 19 Tory St.<br />
<br />
The <a href="https://www.facebook.com/events/249281458555445/">Auckland meeting</a> is 6.30pm at the Auckland University Women's Space (which is open to men for the purposes of this meeting).<br />
<br />
*************<br />
<br />
Protests have already been provisionally organised in Auckland, Wellington and Christchurch.<br />
<br />
<a href="https://www.facebook.com/events/357304844415926/357799021033175/?notif_t=plan_mall_activity">Auckland</a>: Meet<br />
<br />
<a href="https://www.facebook.com/events/539184862832872/?source=1">Wellington</a>: Meet 2pm at the Bucket Fountain<br />
<br />
<a href="https://www.facebook.com/events/530396117045312/">Christchurch</a>: Meet 12 pm at Rememberance Bridge<br />
<br />
These events have generally been organised by individuals who know each other and want to do something using social media to reach a wider audience. People in other areas could do the same.<br />
<br />
*************<br />
<br />
<a href="http://bat-bean-beam.blogspot.co.nz/">Giovanni Tiso</a> listened to Willie Jackson and John Tamihere the day after their interview with Amy and put together a list of their advertisers.<br />
<br />
The Mad Butcher<br />
AA Insurance - Responded saying that they're going to pull their advertising<br />
Yellow - Responded saying that they're going to pull their advertising<br />
Rendevous Grand Hotel Auckland<br />
0800 Drive It<br />
Trustees Executors<br />
Royal Oak Mall<br />
Flight Centre<br />
Countdown - responded and refused to pull advertising (there is quite a lively discussion on their <a href="https://www.facebook.com/countdown">facebook page</a><br />
Telecom<br />
Reckon Accounts (Quicken)<br />
Shanton<br />
Puraz Pro-D<br />
The Country Inn<br />
The Home Ideas Centre<br />
The Finance Marshall<br />
CMC Markets<br />
Cashloans.co.nz<br />
Elite Tailors<br />
Howick Historical Village<br />
Steelmasters<br />
Accurate Locksmiths and Security<br />
Waatea Funeral Services<br />
Auckland Drape Company<br />
Safe Kids<br />
Mobil<br />
Freeview - Responded saying that they're going to pull their advertising<br />
Noel Leeming<br />
Vodafone<br />
Toto's Restaurants<br />
Airbus Express<br />
<br />
ANZ - who weren't on that list have also indicated that they're going to pull their advertising.<br />
<br />
<br />
*************<br />
<br />
My friend works for rape crisis Wellington - someone sent them flowers today as an appreciation of the work they do. As you probably know the services that support rape survivors are under-funded and over-worked.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEixKB6uCZgy6iQB6XJNZzMqooA6T_8eSD1HFCcNlUvrR3KTKTvh9ys-ERkjVYejyd1Ya8hQHCGJOWX9k-X1rFuHZjahyphenhyphenLy7kL7t9E7Qn08oMsh5RQrxXJ3pfa8_jmU2HY2isJfs/s1600/6435_10152370537104778_730802812_n.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEixKB6uCZgy6iQB6XJNZzMqooA6T_8eSD1HFCcNlUvrR3KTKTvh9ys-ERkjVYejyd1Ya8hQHCGJOWX9k-X1rFuHZjahyphenhyphenLy7kL7t9E7Qn08oMsh5RQrxXJ3pfa8_jmU2HY2isJfs/s320/6435_10152370537104778_730802812_n.jpg" width="240" /></a></div>
<br />
If you have money you can spare you could send it to to those doing support and prevention work.<br />
<br />
And if you know someone who you know might have been triggered this week you could check-in on them and send them love.<br />
<br />
***************<br />
<br />
I'm worried that this is sounding individualist - which is why I opened with the collective organising. I do believe that we only have the power . And I've been really heartened by the informal organising I've seen on social media these last few days - talking, supporting each other and taking action (Educate, Agitate, Organise, looks a little bit different when talking about rape culture it's Educate, Support, Agitate, Support , Organise, Support) But I am going to end on an even more individual note.<br />
<br />
It is very easy to condemn rapists you don't know - Matthew Hooten can do it. Condemning rapists in the abstract, or rapist you don't know, isn't actually fighting rape culture. The question is not what you think of young men you've never met who boast about raping people. The question is how you react when someone says that your friend, lover, brother, son, daughter or even just acquaintance is a rapist. I've seen so many people who posture about how much they hate rape, but who snap into denial mode if they've even met the guy (the standard script which appears to be built into rapist apologists is: "that's a very serious allegation - have you gone to the police"). Everyone who attacks rapists in the abstract, but protects and supports the men (and people) they know who have raped someone is doing hard labour to maintain rape culture.<br />
<br />
So next time someone tells you about sexual abuse remember what Willie Jackson and John Tamihere said, remember what the police said - and decide to do something different. Believe them without any 'have you?', 'did you?' 'what were you wearing?', even if it means you need to change your understanding of someone you know, you care about, or you love.<br />
<br />
***************<br />
<br />
As I suggested at the beginning of this post I do have hope. There are so many of us, who are talking back in awesome, smart, funny, strong, powerful, emotional ways. Thank you - to everyone.Maiahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17212711843307060731noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17759756.post-63205101779371879872013-04-09T10:09:00.000+12:002013-04-09T10:10:43.146+12:00Dear Left, This is a Great and Glorious Day - Don't Fuck it UpIf your celebration of her death you mention any of the following: miners, poll tax, unions, Ireland, milk, faulklands, nuclear weapons, unemployment, education, greenham common, immigration, privatisation, VAT, South Africa, Section 28, GLC, or indeed any political issue at all, then we agree about the appropriate way to celebrate this great and glorious day.<br />
<br />
If your celebration of Margaret Thatcher's death communicates nothing about her but her her gender - then you're probably missing the point.<br />
<br />
See it's easy.<br />
<br />
In solidarity and joy<br />
<br />
Maia<br />
<br />
PS Seriously there are so many better songs than Ding Dong the Witch is Dead - try youtube.Maiahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17212711843307060731noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17759756.post-61615783077322823492013-04-09T10:04:00.001+12:002013-04-09T10:07:31.840+12:00What I'm celebratingThis is a great and glorious day.<br />
<br />
Margaret Thatcher was an old woman, who had no more power. Her death will not change anything about politics. I doubt it ever would have, even if <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patrick_Magee_(Irish_republican)">Patrick Magee</a> had succeeded history would not have looked much different. As Russian anarchists found out if you kill the Tsar there's always a new Tsar.<br />
<br />
In some really fundamental ways there is nothing to celebrate because Thatcher won. She described 'New Labour' as her greatest victory - and she wasn't wrong. Neo-liberalism is now the norm, and she died with a Tory government in power doing its bit to take from the poor and give to the rich.<br />
<br />
I'm still celebrating. Margaret Thatcher was not just the harbringer of neo-liberalism. Margaret Thatcher wanted to crush all dissent. Her aim was to destroy all the institutions of resistance in the country she governed. She thought that there was no society, just atomised individuals who only cared about themselves and she aimed to make it so.<br />
<br />
By celebrating her death we prove that she was wrong. Every person who went to a street party tonight to rejoice at her passing shows that the culture, world-view and resistance that she wanted to crush lives on. In the week before she died there were protests against the bedroom tax <a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2013/mar/30/bedroom-tax-welfare-cuts-protests">all over Britain</a>. Thatcher may have died at a time of Tory power, but she also died at a time of resistance.<br />
<br />
Thatcher's legacy is real and horrific. She managed to destroy whole communities with a long and proud history of resistance. But she didn't destroy that resistance. The struggle for a better world isn't going to be fought and won in the short term.<br />
<br />
Woody Guthrie used to tell a story about rabbits on the run from some foxes. They ran and ran through the forest And when they could run know longer they hid in a log while the foxes barked at either end. "What'll we do?" one rabbit said and the other rabbit replied "We'll stay here <a href="http://www.amazon.com/Til-We-Out-Number-Em/dp/B00004SR2K">til we outnumber 'em</a>"<br />
<br />
It's not her death I'm celebrating today. It's our survival.<br />
<br />Maiahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17212711843307060731noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17759756.post-62663244482336705532012-10-30T02:06:00.000+13:002012-10-31T00:36:56.681+13:00The left must not tolerate anti-semitism<div style="border-bottom: medium none; border-left: medium none; border-right: medium none; border-top: medium none;">
Last week, Nathan Symington was charged with vandalising Jewish graves with swastikas. His <a href="http://www.facebook.com/#!/mrnathan.smith.9?fref=ts">facebook page</a> confirms that he is a nazi. The police may be wrong, he may not have vandalised those graves, but there is enough material on his facebook page to condemn his political beliefs. For the purpose of this post, what matters is that he is a nazi, and that there is a significant chance that he was involved in vadalising those graves. </div>
<br />
Nathan Symington had his anti-semitism endorsed and reinforced at at least two left-wing forums.<br />
<br />
Today I'm not talking about anti-semitism generally in NZ (which is something I've been writing a post on for ages and I think is super important), but about the way the NZ left tolerates and even reinforces the most vile extreme anti-semitism from unabashed nazis (I really don't want to be talking about that - because I don't want it to be true - but given that it is naming that is better than being silent).<br />
<br />
<div style="border-bottom: medium none; border-left: medium none; border-right: medium none; border-top: medium none;">
************</div>
<div style="border-bottom: medium none; border-left: medium none; border-right: medium none; border-top: medium none;">
<br /></div>
<div style="border-bottom: medium none; border-left: medium none; border-right: medium none; border-top: medium none;">
Nathan Symington is facebook friends with Occupy Auckland (Still! Apparently Occupy Auckland isn't that discriminating). Apparently he also attended some Occupy Auckland events.</div>
<div style="border-bottom: medium none; border-left: medium none; border-right: medium none; border-top: medium none;">
<br />
That, in itself, is horrendous. </div>
<div style="border-bottom: medium none; border-left: medium none; border-right: medium none; border-top: medium none;">
<br /></div>
<div style="border-bottom: medium none; border-left: medium none; border-right: medium none; border-top: medium none;">
What is worse is that his nazi beliefs were reinforced at Occupy, and by the Occupy Auckland facebook feed. Anti-semitic conspiracy theories were repeated at both the Occupy Auckland and Occupy Wellington camps. There was a serious push-back in Wellington (this <a href="http://workersparty.org.nz/2011/11/01/against-conspiracy-theories-why-our-activism-must-be-based-in-reality/">post</a> is part of that effort). But people had to fight really hard to make clear that anti-semitic conspiracy theories weren't welcome, and they didn't necessarily win.</div>
<div style="border-bottom: medium none; border-left: medium none; border-right: medium none; border-top: medium none;">
<br /></div>
<div style="border-bottom: medium none; border-left: medium none; border-right: medium none; border-top: medium none;">
************</div>
<br />
<br />
Nathan Symington also attended the Aotearoa is not for sale demonstration. This is from his facebook page:<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="border-bottom: medium none; border-left: medium none; border-right: medium none; border-top: medium none; clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjXKmldH16aqeGZD6ggQswVD-6fr8Iqx4sH_BV48WI1anNzpebQEoktPbdwYkHC-jJMFSpOUncuhzKEyny-Dn7r4xujBQUi7D91hGUEG8qJC_VlfLqwJNotN8wxB7LH8bkJb4Oc/s1600/Nathan+simington.png" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; cssfloat: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img alt="Skate board written in chalk 'John Key is the Devil' with a swastika next to it. At a protest with an 'Aotearoa is not for sale' sign." border="0" height="337" qea="true" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjXKmldH16aqeGZD6ggQswVD-6fr8Iqx4sH_BV48WI1anNzpebQEoktPbdwYkHC-jJMFSpOUncuhzKEyny-Dn7r4xujBQUi7D91hGUEG8qJC_VlfLqwJNotN8wxB7LH8bkJb4Oc/s640/Nathan+simington.png" title="" width="640" /></a></div>
He commented "Nationalism is the key"<br />
<br />
I think there is a bigger question here, about the way nationalism is used in anti-asset sales material. Anti-privatisation organisation does not need nationalism. The decision to extensively use nationalism is a conscious one that the people involved in the Aotearoa is not for sale campaign have made. I think it was a mistake (and I hope to make a longer post about that one day - but I probably won't). <br />
<br />
I think people who promoted nationalism in the name of oppposing asset sales should think about how easily Nathan Symington fit into the demo. The person who designed that poster probably never asked "what would a nazi think of this?" - but they probably should have. If we're using propaganda that reassures nazis of their pre-existing beliefs, and they're happy to march along - then we're doing something wrong.<br />
<br />
There were thousands of people in that march. Which might explain why no-one did anything about the fact that one of them was carrying swastikas. I've been on a march where we only realised at hte end that nazis had marched with us (they werne't carrying swastikas). But not marching with nazis; the idea that we have nothing in common with nazis, should be the most basic, fundamental, universally held belief on the left.<br />
<br />
**********<br />
<br />
Ever since I saw Nathan Symington's facebook I have felt totally disgusted and depressed about the New Zealand left. That Symington could have felt any support, or reassurance, or validation from his experiences in the left, when (if) he vadalised hte graves - that should never happened.<br />
<br />
But even now, even once he's been arrested, it doesn't stop. Nathan Symington has marked himself as attending this <a href="http://www.facebook.com/events/490362170982687/">street party against privatisation</a>. Someone brought this up on the Aotearoa is not for sale facebook page, and asked that he wasn't invited. Rather than saying "yes not standing with nazis who probably destroyed graves is a priority for us" - those who were running the Aotearoa is not for sale facebook page deleted the thread who brought it up. Apparently that's how incoherent parts of the left are on anti-semitism - it's a bigger problem to say 'hey lets do something abou the nazis' than for a nazi to attend.<br />
<br />
Note: I've edited to clarify that when someone brought this issue up the people running the facebook page deleted it. The people running the Aotearoa is Not For Sale facebook page (and this event) have consistently deleted posts that try and talk about this, and have not given a clear indication of their position. Maiahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17212711843307060731noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17759756.post-45164047056513637892012-08-06T09:00:00.000+12:002012-08-06T16:14:03.540+12:00On atheismOn
Saturday the 17th February 2001, I realised I had no faith in women's magazines
or God.<span class="apple-converted-space"> </span><br />
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br />
I was at the hospital - I wasn't sick - I was visiting my best friend (she'll
be known as Betsy for the purposes of this post). I was in the waiting room,
and was flicking through a Cosmopolitain with Cameron Diaz on the cover.* I
don't think I had ever really believed in Cosmo - but I had got pleasure from
reading it. But that day, when as I turned the pages I got angrier and angrier.
It wasn't just that I was too young, too fat, too poor, too un-stylish, too
un-cordinated, and too apathetic to have that life – none of it was real. There
wasn't a word of truth in the scores of glossy pages.<span class="apple-converted-space"> </span><br />
<br />
God was less sudden, maybe more cliched. The argument against God from the
existence of evil was covered in my first year philosophy class. However, that
day and the ones that followed I knew something I had never really bothered to
think about before - that a sort of lazy agnosticism was not enough. I was
opposed to the image of God that I knew, a good and powerful God, because a
good and powerful God would not have let this happen.<span class="apple-converted-space"> </span><br />
<br />
********<span class="apple-converted-space"> </span><br />
<br />
I think of myself as a relaxed atheist. A while back following Britain's lead,
a group have put billboards up around Wellington "There's probably no God,
so Relax and enjoy life." And I don't really understand them. Why bother?
Is God that big a deal? Is the idea of God stopping people relaxing and
enjoying life? I have never had any bad experiences with organised religion
myself (and extremely limited experiences of organised religion at all). So
this idea that religion is ruining people's life has little resonance for me.<span class="apple-converted-space"> </span><br />
<br />
I also think it’s important to be careful about the politics of atheism,
particularly when you live on colonised land. There are atheists who are
perfectly happy with focusing their critical anti-spiritual energy on those
with least social power. <o:p></o:p><br />
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
And
even leaving aside the politics, as a historian I think the ways people have
understood and made meaning from the world is incredibly important. I read<span class="apple-converted-space"> </span><a href="http://www.blogger.com/%3C/font%3Ehttp:/www.biota.org/people/douglasadams/%22%3E%3Cfont%20face=%22">this
article</a><span class="apple-converted-space"> </span>by
Douglas Adams when I was quite young, and I have always remembered it.## I don't dismiss the role of religion in the world. Religious and spiritual
practices can be a way of storing knowledge, and understanding of the world.
I've also studied enough history to know that resistance movements have found
strength and solace in organised religion.<span class="apple-converted-space"> </span></div>
<br />
On the smaller scale, I can see that some religious practices can be a useful
to some people. I can see the value of meeting with people every week, of
marking seasons (albiet in a topsy turvey way down this part of the world), of
doing whatever people do in their religious practices (OK I actually don't
understand organised religion at all, but this means that I have no problem
believing that some of it is useful).<span class="apple-converted-space"> </span><br />
<br />
I can even believe that sometimes spiritual stuff (lack of knowledge again
breeds vagueness) is a good survival strategy for people. My aunt is an
alcoholic who has found spiritual practice useful for her. I can see that some
spiritual rituals can create space that some people need. I also know that the
mind is a powerful thing, and beliefs can give us strengths in all sorts of
ways (<a href="http://www.badscience.net/2010/06/1693/">Dr Ben Goldacre</a><span class="apple-converted-space"> </span>is
great for that).<span class="apple-converted-space"> </span><br />
<br />
Obviously, I'm aware of the harm that organised religion can do as well: the
homophobia, the misogyny and the extortion just for starters. But I don't see
any of those as necessary features of organised religions - just common ones.
Most of what happens in the name of religion doesn't bother me because it happens
in the name of religion - most of what happen in the name of religion happens
with other justifications - and it bothers me just as much.<span class="apple-converted-space"> </span><br />
<br />
********<span class="apple-converted-space"> </span><br />
<br />
Someone I used to know has turned towards faith of a sort, and wrote about it<span class="apple-converted-space"> </span><a href="http://www.indymedia.org.nz/article/78634/first-issue-radicle-new-anarchist-zine-a">here</a><span class="apple-converted-space"> </span>in a
zine called "Radicle". This was the passage I couldn’t forget:<span class="apple-converted-space"> </span><br />
<br />
<blockquote>
Fortunately, the world is not a generally shitty place. There
are amazing people, and forces for good deeper than I can make sense of, that
often reward our faith. I want to defend faith, define it and make it less
threatening, but the whole point that it cannot be fully explained or logically
justified. It requires a leap into the unknown </blockquote>
I don't know if other readers will catch the bit I object to. The bit where I
stop being a relaxed atheist and start being an angry materialist atheist.<span class="apple-converted-space"> </span><br />
<br />
Betsy (now out of hopsital) ran into Tracey - someone we both went to school
with. After that awkward chit-chat with someone you don't actually know, Betsy turned to leave. Tracey said "can I pray for you?" Betsy
said "Uh sure" to facilitate the leaving process.<span class="apple-converted-space"> </span><br />
<br />
Tracey grabbed Betsy, would not go, and shouted: "Jesus Christ, please show Betsy your love and
strength so she can let you into her heart and you can heal her."<span class="apple-converted-space"> </span><br />
<br />
Forces for good that reward our faith.<span class="apple-converted-space"> </span><br />
<br />
*******<span class="apple-converted-space"> </span><o:p></o:p><br />
<span class="apple-converted-space"><br /></span><br />
<div class="MsoNormal">
In
form, Tracey's statement about the non-material forces in the world couldn't be
more different from the article in Radicle. It's in a zine that you don't have
to read if you don't want to, it's generalised and it even contains a
qualifier. Tracey’s statement of faith was a full on assault, directed at an
individual that targeted the ways she was already marginalised.<span class="apple-converted-space"> </span><br />
<br />
But in content the statements were disturbingly familiar. Each present a view
in the world that contains spiritual forces with some kind of agency. There is
a huge difference with "faith is often rewarding" (which I don't
disagree with - I would say there is a prima facie case that anything that
large numbers of people do on a regular basis is often rewarding in some sense
of the world) and "forces for good often reward our faith". In the
second, the forces for good are rewarding faith - therefore they're not rewarding
not faith.** Like Tracey's God, these forces are selective about what they
reward.<span class="apple-converted-space"> </span><br />
<br />
But to me the most grotesque idea, in both formulations, is that a God, or
spiritual forces, that are so selective in their rewards are good, or loving.
The Greek and Roman Gods (as far as I'm familiar with them) with their limited
powers, petty feuds, and complete lack of morality - I can actually see them
mapping on to the way I understand the world. I can understand appeasing a God,
or spiritual forces, that reward faith, but not believing they are good.<span class="apple-converted-space"> </span><br />
<br />
********<span class="apple-converted-space"> </span><br />
<br />
Another friend of mine was thinking about sending her child to Catholic school
(she's not Catholic). She was talking about why she didn't mind the religion
part of Catholic school: "When I went to school there was Religious
Education and it terrified me. The God I learned about there was an angry
smiting God, and I was scared he was going to smite me. But this is different -
they're all about how God loves you and looks after you."<span class="apple-converted-space"> </span><br />
<br />
And what happens when God doesn't look after him? Horrible things happen,
and a belief in a loving caring God in the face of the world we live in is as
scary as a smiting one.<br />
<br />
********<span class="apple-converted-space"> </span><br />
<br />
On the macro level there are reasons why things happen - why some people get
cancer and others don't, and some live in poverty and others don't. As a
historian, nothing interests me more than the reasons things happen.<span class="apple-converted-space"> </span><br />
<br />
But on the micro level, that's not how the world works - there is no answer to
why. We can talk about all the explanations that explain the prevalence of say meningitis
- poverty, exchange of fluids, age-based vulnerability. But we will always
reach the limit to our understanding. A point where the only answer is luck.
And at that point we will be unable to answer Why me? Why not her? Why not me?
Why him?***<br />
<br />
At this point, the point of ignorance, and randomness, some people place an
interventionist God or other spiritual power. A God who heals those who
believe, or forces that reward faith. This allows them to control the uncontrollable
and to give meaning to that which is meaningless.<span class="apple-converted-space"> </span><br />
<br />
I understand that urge, and religion is certainly not the only way people in
our society try and feel like they can control the uncontrollable. When Rod
Donald died a friend said that he found it really scary if Rod Donald, cyclist,
Greenie could of a disease that is so often associated with 'lifestyle' then
anyone could die - which is, of course, the truth.<span class="apple-converted-space"> </span><o:p></o:p><br />
<span class="apple-converted-space"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="background: white; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman";">But what I cannot understand is embracing a belief system
that creates meaning from randomness by arguing that virtue is rewarded. We
live in a bitterly unfair world, to claim that there are mysterious forces, or
a God that produces your luck - I cannot understand how anyone who looks at the
world with their eyes open can believe that. </span><o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
********<span class="apple-converted-space"> <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span class="apple-converted-space">I was ranting about all this at a friend of
mine, and she asked if it really mattered (beware I am probably caricaturing
her beliefs to make a point of my own).
People say they believe in moral spiritual forces, but surely no-one
actually believes that. Betsy’s chronic disease would be cured if she accepted
Jesus into her heart. Why bother engaging with people who say things that imply
that they do?<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span class="apple-converted-space">But Tracey was not the first person to harass my
friend Betsy in that way, and has not been the last. I’m not going to be harassed by people who
believe that my body is a problem that God needs to solve. I don’t have to deal with more polite people
who aren’t rude enough to say that my body is a problem that God can solve, but
obviously believe it. The people who
are most likely to suffer at the pointy end of belief – are people who are
already facing massive amounts of unluck and calling bullshit is a way of
standing in solidarity with them. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span class="apple-converted-space">But I also think it’s more respectful to respond
to people who say things that I believe are damaging and wrong with “I think
that’s damaging and wrong” than with “I’m going to ignore that because I don’t
believe you mean what you say.” To me –
the second response is patronising.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span class="apple-converted-space">I don’t assume that religious people hold the
sorts of spiritual beliefs I have criticised in this post. I don’t assume that because someone has some
sort of faith they give moral meaning to the luck and unluck that people
experience. But when people say things
that imply that some sort of spiritual force could intervene to improve
people’s lives if they behaved or believed in a certain way – I think there is
a political value in challenging and unpacking the implications of those
statements.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
*********<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
This is
from a major news service’s**** coverage of the shootings in Aurora during the
batman screenings:<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
</div>
<blockquote>
[name
redacted] told NBC television that when the carnage began she shouted at her
friend: "We've got to get out of here." But when they started to move
she saw people fall around her as the gunman began silently making his way up
the aisle, shooting anyone who was trying to escape ahead of him.<o:p></o:p><br />
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
"He
shot people trying to go out the exits," she said.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
At that
moment, [name redacted] stared her own imminent death in the face. The shooter
came towards her, saying nothing. The barrel of the gun was pointing directly
at her face. "I was just a deer in headlights. I didn't know what to
do."<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
A shot
rang out, but it was aimed at the person sitting right behind her. "I have
no idea why he didn't shoot me," [named redacted] said.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Later,
when she was safe,
[named redacted] told her mother: "Mom, God saved me. God still
loves me."</div>
</blockquote>
<o:p></o:p><br />
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Imagine
if this were true. Imagine if there was
a God who had some power in that movie theatre, and he saved the lives of the people he loved. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
I was
hesitant about commenting on this. The woman was speaking immediately after
surviving horrific trauma. I have thought terrible things, under far less
pressure. This woman was dealing with
her situation as best she could. I don't want to draw attention to her as an individual who made those statements.<br />
<br />
Religious
beliefs that connect luck with morality are so normalised in our society that
even their most horrific expressions stand without comment.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
********<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Turns
out I am not a relaxed atheist, just a protected one. When people who win
awards, reality shows, or sporting events thank God, I just find it amusing,
because I don’t think winning awards, reality shows or sporting events really
matters. And in my everyday life I very rarely run into people thanking God, or
attributing their luck to any spiritual force that is rewarding their faith.
But I don't think you can call yourself a relaxed athiest if you're OK as long
as religion stays well away from spiritual explanations that involve virtue. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
I am in
fact, passionate about materialism,***** and think there's huge power and
strength in understanding what we can about the world. I think it's even more
important to accept the randomness of the universe; not to project meaning onto
the unknown, but to acknowledge the role that luck and unluck play in our
lives.<span class="apple-converted-space"> </span><br />
<br />
********<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
I was
taking a 10 year old for a walk with his dog.<span class="apple-converted-space"> </span><o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="background: white; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman";">“Are you religious?” Later he would ask me who I voted for,
he was obviously thinking about things a lot. </span><br />
<br />
“I’m an athiest.”<span class="apple-converted-space"> </span><br />
<br />
“So’s Mum. Mum and Grandma had big argument over religion. Mum asked Grandma
what she believed and Grandma said when she’d been little she had been really
poor and had no school bag and everyone teased her. So she prayed for a new
school bag. And then the next day someone from her church gave her one, so God
listened to her prayers. And then Mum said that what about all the other
children? why doesn’t God answer their prayers?”<span class="apple-converted-space"> </span><br />
<br />
“Yeah, that’s what I would have said”<span class="apple-converted-space"> </span><br />
<br />
Then we throw another stick for the dog. Apparently that’s all the questions
for today.<span class="apple-converted-space"> </span><o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="background: white; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman";">******* </span><br />
<br />
* There were two magazines with Cameron Diaz on the cover on the ward that
month. Both had the same picture, but her top was a different colour. This was
long before features exposing photoshop were common-place and seeing those two
photos side by side with a different colour was disconcerting in a world that
didn't feel particularly safe or stable.<span class="apple-converted-space"> </span><br />
<br />
<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
** I've
said it before, and I'll probably say it again, understanding the difference
between the active and the passive voice is a fundamental prerequistite for useful
political thinking.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
***
Somewhere around here Schroedinger's Cat and Quantum Physics comes in.<span class="apple-converted-space"> </span><br />
<br />
<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
**** I
have not included the name of the person being quoted, or the site the quote is
from (although google will verify my sources). As I said, my point is not about her, but
that such views are seen as normal.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN">***** I can't read that sentence without hearing
'passionate about materialism' in<span class="apple-converted-space"> </span></span><a href="http://www.blogger.com/%3C/span%3E%3C/font%3Ehttp:/www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bz2-49q6DOI"><span lang="EN">David Mitchell's voice</span></a><span class="apple-converted-space"><span lang="EN"> </span></span><span lang="EN">- but it is true.</span><o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br />
## I had a quote from the article here. I've removed it as someone pointed out (and I agree) that the I used it was racist in exactly the kind of way I was trying to problematise and avoid.</div>Maiahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17212711843307060731noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17759756.post-47376913233742237602012-05-25T02:30:00.000+12:002012-05-25T02:30:10.593+12:00What can they do to you? Whatever they want*<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhhzARYmFBPjpcXTtVuFxRSR3nFj0J1jYoyyNzq9D6VGr_pknlpFFlTJU2LVZVNEYlf1TBlCeNIoa7oJNs7dzVRZJiefaZiAamtjBd01AA8JaDQVQAIVJ4DRlOAv0QBp9gWH8co/s1600/6888412.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img alt="Image of the four defendants in court." border="0" height="186" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhhzARYmFBPjpcXTtVuFxRSR3nFj0J1jYoyyNzq9D6VGr_pknlpFFlTJU2LVZVNEYlf1TBlCeNIoa7oJNs7dzVRZJiefaZiAamtjBd01AA8JaDQVQAIVJ4DRlOAv0QBp9gWH8co/s320/6888412.jpg" title="" width="320" /></a></div>
<br />
You don't need to have been following the trial, or even have heard the verdict, to be able to guess which of the people in this picture were sentenced to two years six months in jail and which were sentenced to 9 months home detention. Pakeha fears about Maori have been projected onto accused throughout the whole case. I've no reason to disbelieve that Andre, who commented on Public Address, is not who he says he is:<br />
<blockquote>
I was excluded from the jury for the trial along with two other jurors after being empanelled. I gave them all a rant prior to departing and am relieved they didn’t find them guilty on the main charge. They were overwhelmingly middle class white women that I left on the panel, some of whom had already told us that Tame Iti scared them etc. One of the jurors asked to be excluded because she was convinced he was guilty by how he looked. She was refused her request to leave and heard the case. Another guy asked to be excluded because he thought the whole exercise was a waste of taxpayer money and resources and he was excluded. How does that work? </blockquote>
<br />
<br />
*******<br />
<br />
One way of communicating my range and anger over the sentences is to talk about how manifestly unjust they are on the court's own terms. <a href="http://www.stuff.co.nz/dominion-post/news/wairarapa/6950804/Mock-execution-of-son-lands-man-in-jail">This man</a> who beat and pretended to hang his children, received a sentence of two years 8 months.<br />
<br />
As <a href="http://www.kiwipolitico.com/2012/05/the-crown-gets-its-pound-of-flesh/">others</a> have <a href="http://norightturn.blogspot.co.nz/2012/05/sentenced.html">pointed out</a> Rodney Hansen, the judge sentenced them as if the charge of being part of an organised criminal group (which the jury could not decide upon) had been proved. He included the defendant's political views as aggravating factors stating: "Some of the participants held extreme anarchist views." He blamed the defendants for the actions of the police - stating that they had done harm by creating divisions within Tuhoe. <br />
<br />
The logic of the judge's sentencing was grotesque. Justice was far from blind - it saw and was terrified of who these people were and sentenced them accordingly.<br />
<br />
*******
<br />
<br />The sentence is unjust when understood inside the system of justice that colonisation brought. But to focus on that is to ignore the larger injustice.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhbLRkwhSn-S7Jmk8jf37zVDnVO01xeWe4j1yfVEz8Osh-iYWUu19zde-_61bMRAM_9wnObSyQzZbMwXozPb_JzD4ehhjClOYAPTgJcgNZAdRTAzO5rBZJ2SIIGupD8-YnvNMdA/s1600/554485_395726837136824_100000985332458_1095339_259075166_n.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img alt="An art work - tuhoe never signed the fucking treaty is repeatedly scribbled in different colours on a map of New Zealand" border="0" height="263" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhbLRkwhSn-S7Jmk8jf37zVDnVO01xeWe4j1yfVEz8Osh-iYWUu19zde-_61bMRAM_9wnObSyQzZbMwXozPb_JzD4ehhjClOYAPTgJcgNZAdRTAzO5rBZJ2SIIGupD8-YnvNMdA/s320/554485_395726837136824_100000985332458_1095339_259075166_n.jpg" title="" width="320" /></a></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<a href="http://www.wayfarergallery.net/artdick/2011/06/12/tuhoe-never-signed-the-fucking-treaty-black-and-red-vivid-on-n-z-map-2011/">From here</a></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Justice Hansen is not the first judge to exert his authority over Tuhoe people as a way of trying maintain the crown's sovereignty over Tuhoe land, unfortunately it's unlikely that he'll be the last. He was very willing to describe the actions he'd decided people had undertaken as 'a frightening prospect undermining our democratic institutions and anathema to society'. He talked of 'we' and 'our' and 'society' singular. He ignored the many actions of the crown that had undermined Maori democratic institutions and that were an anathema to Maori societies.What right do Pakeha from Auckland have to talk of 'we' and 'our' when it comes to Tuhoe land? They can't even claim the right of Kawanatanga.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
*******<br /><br />Protests have been organised around the country over the next couple of days. Come along if you can - thinking that this is wrong is meaningless without action.<br /><br /><a href="https://www.facebook.com/events/410948288936816/">PALMERSTON NORTH</a>Friday, 25th May 2012, 1pm, Palmerston North District Court. Bring placards, banners, chants and friends.<br /><br /><a href="https://www.facebook.com/events/355389537861839/">WELLINGTON</a><br />Friday, 25th May 2012, 12pm, Wellington High Court. Bring placards, banners, chants and friends. <br /><br /><a href="https://www.facebook.com/events/314233375321118/">AUCKLAND</a> Saturday, 26th May 2012, 2pm, Mt Eden Prison.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.facebook.com/events/373645256017836/">DUNEDIN</a> Saturday 26th May 2012, 2pm, Dunedin District Court House.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.facebook.com/events/421114921256143/">CHRISTCHURCH</a> Saturday 26th May 2012, 4pm, Christchurch Police Station.<br /><br />* I found some comfort in Marge Piercy's <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zveWE6I3M2g">The Low Road</a> tonight - not for the first time.<br /><br />** I've seen a lot of people express this idea in a way that implies that Rangi and Tame are more Maori than Emily. Sometimes this is because of lack of knowledge, but it is wrong.</div>Maiahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17212711843307060731noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17759756.post-26428619358680008572012-05-17T23:00:00.000+12:002012-05-18T02:25:08.231+12:00Good Idea - Bad Idea<br />
<b>Good Idea</b><br />
<br />
Yesterday, the Southern DHB <a href="http://www.stuff.co.nz/southland-times/news/6928198/Hospital-soon-to-perform-abortions">announced</a> that it was going to start providing an abortion service in Invercargill. Previously people from Southland who needed an abortion have had to travel to Christchurch (pre-earthquake) and Dunedin (since February 2011) to get them.* (Here's ALRANZ's <a href="http://alranz.wordpress.com/2012/05/16/alranz-welcomes-news-of-southland-abortion-service/">supportive press release</a>.)<br />
<br />
One of the many things that is wrong with our current abortion law is that it makes centralised services necessary - which means women who don't live in the main centres have to expend extra money and time in order to get an abortion. It's great (but not enough) that things have got a little better for Southland women.<br />
<br />
<b>Bad Idea</b><br />
<br />
Yesterday, LifeChoice Victoria, LifeChoice Canterbury and Pro-Life Auckland launched a Right to Know campaign (there are not enough sarcastic quote marks in the world to properly communicate just imagine two sets for pretty much every word). They distributed leaflets that lied about abortion in all the major lectures theatres at at least two (and probably three universities).** You can read the full text on <a href="http://prolife.org.nz/righttoknow/">their website</a>. Campus Feminist Collective in Auckland have started <a href="http://www.facebook.com/groups/68932333002/permalink/10150828722143003/">planning</a> their response<br />
<br />
My favourite quote demonstrates the hideous double-speak of incrementalism: "Women should be trusted with all of the available facts, and then allowed the freedom and space to make a properly informed decision." By 'facts' they mean 'inaccurate bullshit we like' and by 'freedom and space to make a properly informed decision' they mean 'make all women wait longer than they need to get an abortion through a cooling off period.'<div>
<br />The reason that this double-speak has any chance of working (and I hope it doesn't work - the person I was sitting next to thought the leaflets were prochoice - because they hadn't read the leaflet only looked at hte headings) is because the politics of abortion aren't particularly clear in this country. Even people who are reasonably pro-choice can buy into a discourse which portrays abortion as the ethically murky thing that we shouldn't talk about, if that's the only discourse abortion they ever hear. We need to be the ones that champion the ability of pregnant people to make their own decisions - so that everyone will see this for the patronising claptrap that it is.<br />
<br />
* Talking of which does anyone know what the current situation is for people who need abortions from the West Coast? They used to have to travel to Christchurch, but that clinic was damaged in the earthquake - do they now have to travel to Dunedin or Nelson?<br />
<br />
** They're well-funded - these were glossy properly printed leaflets that were three to an 3 page - and they would have had thousands of them to do all those lecture theatres.</div>Maiahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17212711843307060731noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17759756.post-47224753193934789492012-05-10T00:31:00.000+12:002012-05-10T00:33:10.183+12:00Problem solvedAs you have probably heard, and raged about , the government's <a href="http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/6876758/Beneficiary-contraception-plan-offensive">current plan</a> is to target young women who are on benefits (or whose parents are on benefits) for long-term contraception.<br />
<div>
<br />
<a href="http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10804591">Colin Craig</a> objects for the following reasons:<br />
<blockquote>
"Why should, say, a 70-year-old who's had one partner all their life be paying for a young woman to sleep around? "We are the country with the most promiscuous young women in the world. This does nothing to help us at all."</blockquote>
<div>
<br />
Meanwhile <a href="http://righttolife.org.nz/2012/05/09/steralisation-of-women/">Right to Life</a> is really concerned about women getting tubal ligations. They're worried for the following reasons:<br />
<ul>
<blockquote>
<br />
<br />
<li>It undermines the nature and purpose of marriage and sexuality. It goes against the dignity of sexual relations as intended by our Creator. It prevents the total gift of self because it excludes the potential for fertility.</li>
<li>Tubal ligation is the mutilation of a woman’s body and a violation of her human rights. Women have a right to the protection of the State.</li>
<li>Tubal ligation is an assault on the integrity of a woman’s body.</li>
<li>It is bad medicine, pregnancy is not a disease. There is no disease for which ligation would be a treatment. It is a medical procedure which is intended to destroy healthy organs.</li>
</blockquote>
</ul>
I have the perfect solution to this: <br />
<br />
A cage fight.<br />
<br />
We lock all the people who think that certain women should have contraception forced on them and those who think women can't consent to sterilization or don't really know what contraception is, but know they're against it.<br />
<br />
While they're fighting it out with each other those of us who believe that all people should have control of their bodies, and be able to select whatever contraception, or non-contraception, best works for them, without any financial obstacles, can take over the world.</div>
</div>Maiahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17212711843307060731noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17759756.post-29530782894914599172012-05-07T08:00:00.000+12:002012-05-07T17:13:09.096+12:00Aotearoa is not for Sale: Demo report<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhVtMSFaiLKZ01CGvawg4FxJu3-DKYLRHBtT-dWtwGZbSOk57c97bnh1mDYk9qXBflqg-nFDDrCrioUJ34x8QBkTLPJQQluy09jPYvmFuvYp4iIbor1DHjG3WcpAEVmu-JomlOd/s1600/582011_10150762785539217_586714216_9657592_1574723565_n.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img alt="Photo of lots of people at the Hikoi" border="0" height="179" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhVtMSFaiLKZ01CGvawg4FxJu3-DKYLRHBtT-dWtwGZbSOk57c97bnh1mDYk9qXBflqg-nFDDrCrioUJ34x8QBkTLPJQQluy09jPYvmFuvYp4iIbor1DHjG3WcpAEVmu-JomlOd/s320/582011_10150762785539217_586714216_9657592_1574723565_n.jpg" title="" width="320" /></a></div>
<br />
4,000 people marched in the hīkoi 'Aotearoa is not for sale' Friday (this is some of them).<br />
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
I joined from a feeder march from the university. We were worried we weren't going to meet up properly. The first thing I saw was flashing police lights - which said the hīkoi wasn't far away. Then I saw people two blocks away turning into Willis St and there were just more and more of them - by the time we reached the
hīkoi the front was already in Lambton Quay. There were just so many people.<br />
<br />
I wanted to see how long it went back from there so I started walked backwards against the demo. I said hello to friends, my sister, acquaintances, more friends, people who I thought were overseas; I went past a brass band, many lots of chanting, and still people kept coming. This was the biggest march I'd been on since the Foreshore and Seabed
Hīkoi in 2004.<br />
<br />
I was on Wakefield St before I could see the end. I hadn't been planning to count it, even though I'm a wee bit obsessed with counting demos - it was too big. But having seen so many people I wanted to be able to put a number on it. So cutting corners and walking fast, I got all the way to the front again (by this time the front was half-way down Lambton Quay. I counted out a hundred in groups of ten, and got a good sense of what 100 people looked like - then I counted people in groups. About 37 groups of 100 people walked past me - and by the time we got to parliament it was more - as some could only come for their lunch break. <br />
<br />
Watching everyone walk past I realised just how huge a group of 4,000 people is. The different bits of the demo had a very different feel. The very front was singing, and chanting faded in and out as people passed. There were groups behind different signs - focusing on issues in specific communities - the meatworkers were well represented. There were also some very cute kids (with and without signs).<br />
<div>
<br />
The
hīkoi was led by Maori, and Tino Rangatiratanga flags made a really clear statement about the issues being fought for. I've been on Maori led protests with only a smattering of tau iwi. I've also been on plenty of protests that were organised and dominated by Pakeha and made no effort to acknowledge tangata whenua (including many, many that I've been part of organising). This was something slightly different than either of those things. Maori led the
hīkoi, and framed the issues around Tino Rangatiratanga, and tau iwi accepted that leadership and framing - because we believe that our interests are best represented by being part of that fight.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
******</div>
<div>
<br />
I spent much of the time once we'd actually got to parliament trying to find out was speaking. This was quite a difficult mission. The sound system they had didn't work and people were trying to speak to a crowd of 4,000 through a mega-phone. Earlier on, at the Vic feeder march - you could barely hear the speeches that were given through a megaphone when there were 100 of us. It's a fine experience for those giving the speeches, organising the speeches and the first few rows - but a rally without a proper sound system just breaks up the protest for everyone else. It is no longer a collective experience. Either acknowledge that your sound system isn't good enough and focus on a very few chants - or get a sound system that'll allow everyone to hear speakers. Anything else is actually disrespectful to the vast majority of people who came - by not having a good sound system and still giving speeches you're telling them they don't matter (and I should say I've been part of organising protests that made this mistake on many occasions - and it is only the few times that we've got it right that I've realised how important it is)<br />
<br />
In this particular case, it was probably good. The list I managed to build up was:<br />
<br />
Someone who had been part of organising the hīkoi<br />
Grant Robertson (apparently David Shearer was giving a speech to the Wellington Chamber of Commerce)<br />
Russel Norman (obviously this filled me with joy)<br />
Hone Harawira<br />
Winston Peters (!!!!!!)<br />
Someone from the Meatworkers Union (I was sad to miss this)<br />
I heard one woman's voice, but I couldn't figure out who she was<br />
Te Ururoa Flavell<br />
<br /></div>
<div>
I'll talk about the politics of this in a second, but at the time (no-one was giving two minute speeches - so the talking - which I couldn't hear - went on and on and on) I began to believe that the plan was to keep talking until everyone had left.<br />
<br />
******<br />
<br />
The political nature of the
hīkoi is a little harder to analyse. Demonstrations are inherently incoherent events - and the larger a demo is the the larger standard deviation is. On this demo one guy had two flags on his flag pool - the first was a tingo rangatiratanga flag. The second was not a flag I'd seen before. It was white and had the union jack in one corner, there were crossed shotguns on it, with a crown on top of it - and it had 'union power' written on. I can't make those symbols make a coherent message - but it must have meant something to him.<br />
<br />
There has already been quite a lot of radical political analysis of the hīkoi. <a href="http://uriohau.blogspot.co.nz/2012/04/anti-capitalism-must-feature-at-hikoi.html">Valerie Morse</a> argued for the importance of anti-capitalist politics. Kim at <a href="http://starspangledrodeo.blogspot.co.nz/">He Hōaka</a> responded with the importance. And since Friday, Shomi Yoon has a post on <a href="http://isonz.blogspot.co.nz/2012/05/wellington-aotearoa-is-not-for-sale.html?spref=fb">ISO's blog</a> has a demo report.<br />
<br />
'Aotearoa is not for sale' (a name I hate incidentally - currently Aotearoa is for sale - saying something that is patently false has never seemed like a good strategy for me) is centred around resisting current attacks. It opposed: "privatisation of public services, sale of public assets to private investors (local AND overseas), casualisation of labour, privatisation and pillage of our country's resources." I really appreciate the the posts I mentioned above each are focused on linking the current attacks with critical understandings of society. In order to successfully fight - we need to understand how the world works and that means naming colonialism and capitalism. <br />
<br />
I want to highlight a point of Shomi's "The xenophobia that’s represented by NZ First leader Winston Peters will be absolutely damaging to the campaign. It is a problem that an openly reactionary party like NZ First felt comfortable endorsing the hikoi." While the fact that no-one heard him takes a little of the sting out of the fact that he could talk . Some of the campaigning material has been xenophobic - emphasising 'foreign ownership' as if that was particularly.
The false 'we' is a real danger - supposedly left-wing people have suggested there's something progressive about a consortium led by Michael Fay buying farms. The right have been emphasising the idea of "Mum and Dad" investors. If those who oppose privation use xenophobia - then it is easy for the right to brush off those criticism with examples of New Zealand investors. If we attack privatisation in its our totality our criticisms are much harder to refute.<br />
My contribution is more prosaic. The protest was amazing - getting 4,000 people together is an amazing achievement. However, it is not enough. As John Key has already made clear - he can ignore it. One massive protest isn't enough. Organising is about growing and maintaining pressure. If we want to effectively fight the current attacks - and push for a better world - we need more than one massive protest.<br />
<br />
******<br />
<br />
Last thought:<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgHzKxWUbJAkG8d6GLVaFeTK_PFL7RXO7pUn4WEAPhiQ6N9UR77s1OE7lL13UseQkGKeg9z1DV-pPst6ClW0dTVW5o7FkkNVGEgcfIVDnQR7sExX68xoA001B5e9CUyhOaBDfq5/s1600/Seddon.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img alt="A statue of Richard Seddon with a Tino Rangatiratanga flag and a flag of the United Tribes" border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgHzKxWUbJAkG8d6GLVaFeTK_PFL7RXO7pUn4WEAPhiQ6N9UR77s1OE7lL13UseQkGKeg9z1DV-pPst6ClW0dTVW5o7FkkNVGEgcfIVDnQR7sExX68xoA001B5e9CUyhOaBDfq5/s1600/Seddon.jpg" title="" /></a></div>
<br />
All the best protests enlist Seddon in their cause.</div>
</div>Maiahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17212711843307060731noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17759756.post-41511257993366485822012-03-27T00:44:00.000+13:002012-03-27T00:44:02.313+13:00A likely feministI don't think Tulisa Contostavlos is a household name in New Zealand. Certainly the only reason that I'd heard of her is because I spent last winter developing a my knowledge of British comedians, discovered the awesomeness that is Simon Amstell and watched a lot of Never Mind the Buzzcocks. For those who don't know she was part of a British group called N-Dubz, she judged British X-factor, and she's about to release a solo album.<br />
<br />
And it turns out that she's awesome. Recently, a scum-bag ex-boyfriend of hers released a sex-tape. Horrifically, this is an occupational hazard for women like Tulisa. And if they have a scumbag ex-boyfriend prepared to release a sex-tape, young female celebrities are trapped in a web of victim-blaming, slut-shaming, judgement. Women in her position have had their careers threatened, and been forced to offer ridiculous 'apologies' to keep their job. It is very difficult for the young women caught in this web of judgement to respond to it without reinforcing some of the ideas they're being attacked with.<br />
<br />
Tulisa didn't respond with a press statement forced by her management or employers, but with another video - where she is straight up, direct and refuses to be shamed by toxic ideas about women's sexuality:<br />
<br />
<iframe allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/qVaW3rfCwq8?rel=0" width="420"></iframe><br />
<br />
<a href="http://lybio.net/tulisa-talks/people/">Transcript</a><br />
<br />
Just go watch the whole thing.<br />
<br />
***********<br />
<br />
My appreciation for this awesome video was slightly marred because I learned about it in <a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/lifeandstyle/2012/mar/24/tulisa-contostavlos-feminisms-new-hero">this article</a> from the guardian website. Because the author is not content in celebrating Tulisa's response. She also emphasises how 'unlikely' it is that Tulisa would provide a feminist response.<br />
<br />
Tulisa has talked <a href="http://www.digitalspy.co.uk/showbiz/news/a210578/n-dubzs-tulisa-i-attempted-suicide.html">really explicitly</a> about being in an abusive relationship as a teenager and the effect that had on her well-being. I'm just looking at interviews linked on wikipedia and she is very explicit about misogyny and the effect that it has had on her life. And yet the article doesn't even feel the need to explain or justify why she thinks Tulisa is an 'unlikely' feminist.<br />
<br />
Because when a commissioning editor at the Observer describes Tulisa as an 'unlikely' feminist - the subtext is pretty close to being text. It would be uncouth to be explicit about the class-differences which underly the author's supposed surprise. After all this is Britain and you can hear Tulisa's voice - and on the guardian website no more explanation than that is needed.<br />
<br />
I think it's really important to make the subterranean explicit. That's the only way to recognise these off hand lines as an effort to claim feminism as the exclusive property of middle-class women. This is both an assumption of what feminism is, an expression of what the author wants it to be, and act of maintaining those borders; for the author feminism is a movement that only recognises middle-class women's expression of their experiences, and allows people to be shocked when working-class women express themselves at all. <br />
<br />
The best response of course, is to watch Tulisa's video again and say that there's nothing unlikely or surprising about it.Maiahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17212711843307060731noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17759756.post-53832129805023709982012-03-23T12:55:00.000+13:002012-03-23T12:55:00.683+13:00Junk Science that supports 'Health at Every Size' is still Junk ScienceA few months back, over at <a href="http://www.bigfatblog.com/study-fat-people-benefit-most-healthy-habits">Big Fat Blog</a> there was a report on <a href="http://www.jabfm.org/content/25/1/9.full.pdf">this study</a>. The study was basically examining four 'healthy' habits (moderate drinking, not smoking, 'exercising' and eating 5 plus fruit and vegetables) and the BMI, and then doing an analysis of risk of death. DeeLeigh from BFB summarised its findings like this: <br />
<blockquote>
Two things really jump out at me. First, the more healthy habits we have, the more our life expectancy matches the life expectancy of thin people with the same habits. When we've got all four, the gap is pretty much closed. Second, it's only the fat people with no healthy habits who have a dramatically reduced life expectancy in comparison to thinner people.<br />
<br />
This is a strong confirmation of what HAES advocates have been saying for years</blockquote>
It's bullshit. Of course it's bullshit. This study has exactly the same errors as all the other studies which people on fat acceptance blogs have picked apart and chanted "Correlation does not prove causation" at. The most glaring of which is (as always) that it does not control for class. You cannot say anything meaningful about people's bodies or lives if you don't take into account the way resources are distributed in society.<br />
<br />
I've always felt slightly uncomfortable about the way scientific studies are used for the cause of fat acceptance. I've always felt it conceded too much ground - by spending lots of energy arguing that fat isn't necessarily unhealthy, we're conceding the conclusion that if fat was healthy fat hatred would be justified. But I can see that given the amount of junk-fat-hating masquerading as science there is out there debunking is useful work. But if debunking is going to work as a persuasive factor, or (more importantly in my opinion) a way of figuring out how the world works, then people engaging with scientific studies have to be absolutely disciplined and committed to engaging with the literature as it is. Just reposting one article that agrees with your pre-conceived views without engaging with the critical thinking that you would if it disagreed undermines that project.<br />
<br />
******<br />
<br />
That blog post was the first thing that came to my mind when I read the post and skimmed the article. But then I read the article in more detail and I became outraged on a whole new level. Because in the article itself they provide how they'd defined exercise: <br />
<blockquote>
Level of physical activity was determined according to the frequency of participation in leisure-time physical activities within the previous month.</blockquote>
There is no justification for this definition in the article.* <br />
<br />
I actually lose it at this point and can't form any coherent thoughts. You can't measure a subset or something a pretend you've measured the whole thing. You can't claim to do one thing, when you're actually doing something else. You can't just wave away the word 'leisure-time' as if it doesn't exist. Except apparently you can - in a peer-reviewed journal.<br />
<br />
I want to know how wide-spread this is? How often in peer-reviewed articles, advice given to doctors, information passed on to us all have they told us that 'exercise' has a particular effect when they've measured 'leisure-time exercise'.<br />
<br />
I was vaguely aware that workplace exercise did not quite fit the chirpy model put about in videos like <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aUaInS6HIGo">this one</a>. Partly I just knew this from studying the history of work - work that requires exercise wears bodies out - it's nothing like the experience of exercise that people get from the gym (<a href="http://motherjones.com/politics/2012/02/mac-mcclelland-free-online-shipping-warehouses-labor">this article</a> about working in a warehouse for internet shopping is an important reminder that there are now new forms of work that require body destroying exercise). <br />
<br />
The most obvious point we come against is class (they also, surprise surprise didn't control for Socio-economic status in this article). Are articles about leisure-time exercise actually measuring the effect leisure time that you can use for yourself? The experience of physical activity as part of paid work is qualatatively different from leisure time physical activity - when you're in paid work that you're going to have to do day in day out, you have to conserve energy and conserve your body. Also people who can do leisure-time physical activity probably aren't facing body-destroying physical labour in their jobs. <br />
<br />
<a href="http://www.badscience.net/2008/08/think-yourself-thin/">this article</a> has long fascinated me (warning Ben Goldacre is a
fat-hating douche at the beginning). It tells of a study of hotel
cleaners, many of whom described themselves as doing no exercise (which
shows how deeply the false equivalency of leisure-time exercise and
exercise has worked into people's self-defintion). In one hotel they
told the workers specifically that the work cleaners were doing (which
is after all hard physical labour) was exactly the sort of exercise that
doctors recommend. The group who were told that saw all sorts of
health benefits over the next month. But the question that I've always
wondered is - why didn't they see themselves as doing exercise?<br />
<br />
I was recently hanging round with a five-year old who is always running around like a young spider-monkey and she was talking to herself about 'exercise' and describing some of the things she was doing as 'exercise' - and it was clear that she'd just started school and been told about the importance of exercise and she was trying to figure out what 'exercise' was - what part of her constantly moving around counted. Because 'exercise' is not quite synonymous with physical movement - and a five year old need to figure that out - even if peer-reviewed journals only tell us so in their methodology section.<br />
<br />
* There may some justifications in the articles that are cited, but I couldn't access any of the cited articles in the relevant section. I'd love to hear from people who can if there is a justification if you follow the references.Maiahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17212711843307060731noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17759756.post-44405341614818878312012-03-21T22:49:00.002+13:002012-03-21T22:52:13.681+13:00This ain't a court of justice son<span style="font-family: inherit;">Kim from <a href="http://starspangledrodeo.blogspot.co.nz/2012/03/no-justice-in-operation-8.html">He Hōaka</a> has written an amazing post about justice and Operation 8. </span><br />
<blockquote>
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="background-color: white; line-height: 18px;">In his keynote address to the Māori criminal justice colloquium in 2008, Moana Jackson described justice as a system </span><q style="background-color: white; line-height: 18px;"><i>which helps us deal with wrong by re-enforcing what is right, which helps us deal with hurt by dealing with those who are hurt, by helping us deal with injustice by re-defining what is injustice and what is just in our terms</i>.</q><span style="background-color: white; line-height: 18px;"> Such a system is focused on avoiding and putting right social harm. It is a definition which makes sense to me. </span><br style="background-color: white; line-height: 18px;" /><br style="background-color: white; line-height: 18px;" /><span style="background-color: white; line-height: 18px;">If we use this definition to look at what happened on and since October 15, 2007, it is clear that one party is responsible for social harm (eg, </span><a href="http://www.nzherald.co.nz/anti-terror-raids/news/article.cfm?c_id=1501470&objectid=10470121" style="background-color: white; color: #6e6e6e; line-height: 18px; text-decoration: none;">from the Herald</a><span style="background-color: white; line-height: 18px;">). On October 15, police smashed their way into houses around the country, and attempted to terrify everyone they found—shouting, pointing guns, holding people captive. They blockaded an entire community, stopping and searching cars, photographing occupants, all at gun point. All of this was indiscriminate, children and adults were targeted. Around 20 people were taken and held for a month. Since then, police have harassed those who were arrested, through the courts with ridiculous bail restrictions, and also on the streets. Governments have allowed and defended this behaviour; for example, Helen Clark used the media to say those arrested were guilty before charges had even been laid (</span><a href="http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/8668/PM-activists-trained-to-use-napalm" style="background-color: white; color: #6e6e6e; line-height: 18px; text-decoration: none;"> PM: activists trained to use napalm</a><span style="background-color: white; line-height: 18px;">), while John Key “says there is no need for an inquiry into how police and the Crown handled the Te Urewera raids case” (</span><a href="http://www.radionz.co.nz/news/political/101392/te-urewera-trial-cost-is-$3-point-6-million-and-rising" style="background-color: white; color: #6e6e6e; line-height: 18px; text-decoration: none;">Te Urewera trial cost</a><span style="background-color: white; line-height: 18px;">). As recently as three weeks ago, while the Operation 8 trial was in the news, the police were still harassing the people of Ruātoki (</span><a href="http://tvnz.co.nz/national-news/residents-terrorised-after-police-raid-wrong-house-4744220/video" style="background-color: white; color: #6e6e6e; line-height: 18px; text-decoration: none;">Residents terrorised after police raid wrong house</a><span style="background-color: white; line-height: 18px;">), and were lucky not to seriously hurt anyone. </span><br style="background-color: white; line-height: 18px;" /><br style="background-color: white; line-height: 18px;" /><span style="background-color: white; line-height: 18px;">Of all the evidence that was presented in the media and in court, culled from hundreds of thousands of pages of evidence collected, there is only one example of anyone other than the Crown causing harm to others (</span><a href="http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/crime/6464439/Urewera-trial-Apology-followed-shots-court-told" style="background-color: white; color: #6e6e6e; line-height: 18px; text-decoration: none;">Apology followed shots</a><span style="background-color: white; line-height: 18px;">). Four and a half years of harassment and vilification of those arrested, their whānau, the residents of Ruātoki, and Ngāi Tūhoe in general, does nothing to fix that harm. </span></span><span style="font-family: inherit;"></span></blockquote>
Go read her <a href="http://www.blogger.com/%3C/span%3Ehttp://starspangledrodeo.blogspot.co.nz/2012/03/no-justice-in-operation-8.html">whole post</a><br />
<div>
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: inherit;">I think I'm going to wait until it's really all over (probably </span>sentencing on May the 24th) to say anything more. <span style="font-family: inherit;"> I'm not sure if I even have anything more to say (I stole the title of this post from a friend's facebook post)- it's been a long four and a half years (and six days).</span></div>Maiahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17212711843307060731noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17759756.post-53720795333503362042012-03-09T01:56:00.002+13:002012-03-09T01:56:50.641+13:00Now you've come to the hardest timeWhile the details of the Ports of Auckland dispute get a bit complicated - at its core it is incredibly simple. The union isn't making demands for better wages and conditions (and I'd support them if they did). The Port, as the employer, demanded massive changes aimed at casualising the workforce. The union refused to <div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Casualisation is a serious threat to workers' income - not knowing how many hours you're going to work each week . As <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nTsm90fuXdM&feature=plcp&context=C457468dVDvjVQa1PpcFMbKzQMWdpPKZ70V1lZautJF2AD9c9jWlQ%3D">this video</a> demonstrates it also has a huge impact on workers lives. One of the conditions port workers are trying to hold onto is the right to have one weekend off in three.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgKiwbhXVw3b2qyURigjc7K_tH8XSjSpGDIeZa_oyjQSnzj6_jsfaAS4-mxE0NnheYbccWh9R6GHD4emMenKVZOv3ucP-NwVCwWr5bhLTdhh1Y-aC5U5Vz33yM7gALBpKexI0cF/s1600/image002.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgKiwbhXVw3b2qyURigjc7K_tH8XSjSpGDIeZa_oyjQSnzj6_jsfaAS4-mxE0NnheYbccWh9R6GHD4emMenKVZOv3ucP-NwVCwWr5bhLTdhh1Y-aC5U5Vz33yM7gALBpKexI0cF/s320/image002.jpg" width="226" /></a>But from the employers point of view it's also about power - the employer has far more power over a casualised work-force than they do with a permanent one. </div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
The actions of Ports of Auckland are not just a threat to port workers. If Ports of Auckland win, then more employers will follow. Secure hours are one of the most basic and important work conditions.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
It's not over. In shipping time is money (that's why those in charge of the Rena charted a quicker course). There's six weeks until the redundancies can actually happen legally and all sorts of industrial action that can happen before then. And after that they'll still need people to work the port - and if they can't get scabs the containers. </div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
So support and solidarity are incredibly important, not just for the wharfies, but for all our jobs. The union's campaign site is <a href="http://www.saveourport.com/">saveourport.com</a>. </div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
********</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Ports of Auckland are not the only major industrial action at the moment. AFFCO (owned by the Talleys family) has <a href="http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/6516912/Family-united-in-facing-down-Affco-lockout">locked out</a> meatworkers across the country, they're also demanding casualisation and a roll back of wages and conditions. Oceania rest home workers have been on <a href="http://sfwu.org.nz/news.asp?pageID=2145822798&RefID=2141741546">strike</a> seeking a pay increase (the companies offer is currently zero for the first year).</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
At CMP meatworkes union withstood the company's demands for lower wages and casualisation. They received huge solidarity and support. The employers may be on the rampage, but they can be resisted - together.</div>Maiahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17212711843307060731noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17759756.post-80878443495396266632012-02-21T01:31:00.000+13:002012-02-21T01:31:06.174+13:00I lied - I have more to sayI thought the trial would drive me to silence. I've written a lot about the raids, and a bit about the court case, but I've never explicitly outlined the political grounds that I base my solidarity on. As I mentioned in my last post, I have found this case incredibly difficult to write about for years now. But as the trial has proceeded I have discovered that there are things I want to say, no matter how difficult it is to do so.<br />
<br />
Ross Burns, who is the crown prosecutor, (unfortunately he looks nothing like Mr Burns, although the name is still amusing), summarised his understanding of : "It's pretty clear that Plan A was negotiation. If negotiation didn't work he [Tame Iti] at least felt it was in the interest of Tuhoe people to further their self determination at the point of the gun."<br />
<br />
I think he expects his audience (not just the jury, but people like me who hear him on the radio) to be shocked by this, to condemn it out of hand.<br />
<br />
My solidarity is based on my support of Te Mana Moutuhake o Tuhoe and if self-determination means anything, it has to include self-determination in the nature of the struggle. If you support self-determination, Mana Moutuhake, or Tino Rangatiratanga, you have to respect those who are seeking liberation the right to determine their own struggle.<br />
<br />
I should stop here and say that just because I would support the defendants if they were doing what Ross Burns says they were doing - doesn't mean that I think Ross Burns is right. And even if he is right in the broader sense of Tame Iti's strategy, that doesn't mean any crime was committed, or that anyone else shared his ideas. As a defence lawyer asked: "Was there just a bunch of people, the membership of which changed from time to time, with a myriad of motivations, ideas thoughts and objects, and perhaps - with respect - for some no idea at all."<br />
<br />
The public defence of those charged has been based around denying the crown's case. It is difficult to vigorously deny something, without supporting the idea that the thing you are denying is wrong (think of why 'not that there's anything wrong with that' has become a cliche). I think the denial can give the impression of giving great significance to the small details of the crown case. There is no crime, after all, in wearing balaclavas or in wanting to overthrow the government. <br />
<br />
And this denial of the crown case is not the basis of my solidarity. I think it's really important that someone says 'So what?' to Burns's scaremongering about Tuhoe independence.Maiahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17212711843307060731noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17759756.post-18312404390650789402012-02-13T09:00:00.000+13:002012-02-13T09:00:06.969+13:00SolidarityThe trial begins today. 4 years, 3 months, 4 weeks and one day since the October 15th raids. Four people are still facing charges: Tame Iti, Rangi Kemara, Emily Bailey and Urs Signer. I will not recount the history of the case, I will just offer my solidarity. I think it's important not just to offer solidarity to the defendants but stand in solidarity with the struggle for te Mana Motuhake o Tūhoe.<br />
<br />
I know I will struggle to write any more about the case. My personal experience and political analysis are intertwined in a way that makes it very difficult to write for a general audience. The only thing I have to offer, besides what I have already said, is this poem:<br />
<br />
<iframe allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/zveWE6I3M2g" width="560"></iframe><br />
<br />
<a href="http://www.margepiercy.com/sampling/The_Low_Road.htm">Text of the poem</a><br />Maiahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17212711843307060731noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17759756.post-35933923283526826092011-12-26T14:18:00.002+13:002012-01-01T19:41:25.475+13:00On Change and Accountability: A response to Clarisse ThornNote for those who don't read <a href="http://www.feministe.us/blog">Feministe</a>. Clarisse Thorn posted an <a href="http://www.rolereboot.org/sex-and-relationships/details/2011-12-on-sex-drugs-and-feminism-a-qa-with-hugo-schwyzer-pa">interview</a> with Hugo Schwyzer. People objected to Hugo Schwyzer being given this space on a feminist blog as he had, among other things, tried to <a href="http://www.hugoschwyzer.net/2011/01/03/what-you-need-to-remember-what-you-need-to-forget-on-self-acceptance-after-doing-something-truly-awful/">kill his girlfriend</a> a decade ago. Clarisse Thorn responded by closing comments on the interview thread and writing a post called <a href="http://www.feministe.us/blog/archives/2011/12/23/on-change-and-accountability/">On Change and Accountability</a>. This post is primarily in response to that last post of Clarisse's, which attempted to transfer the debate to a theoretical one about change and accountability. (Feministe has since offered this <a href="http://www.feministe.us/blog/archives/2011/12/24/a-different-take-on-accountability/">apology</a>). This post will focus on the general not the particular - so you don't have to have followed all the links to understand it. If you want to follow the wider discussion <a href="http://lubiddu.wordpress.com/2011/12/24/rules-of-survival/">La Lubu's post</a> is my favourite (I also think there's been some good stuff on Tumblr, but I can never find stuff there).<br />
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
*******</div>
Dear Clarisse<br />
<br />
Towards the end of your post <a href="http://clarissethorn.com/blog/2011/12/22/on-change-and-accountability">On Change and Accountability</a> you asked:<br />
<blockquote>
Have you thought about these questions in your own life? I don’t mean abstractly, as an intellectual exercise. Concretely, and with intention. What would you do if, tomorrow, you found out that your best friend was a rapist? Your lover? What would you do if your sibling came to you to confess a terrible crime? To request absolution? To request accountability?</blockquote>
<div>
<div>
Did you expect your readers to answer no? Sometime this year, it'll be a decade since a man tried to rape a woman in my house. They knew each other, and me, through left-wing political circles. Since then I've known more than ten left-wing men who used intimate violence against women. I've never been central to any collective response, all of which were ad hoc and some of which may have done more good than harm, or been particularly close to the men. I still have no idea on how to respond to intimate violence on the left in a positive way, but I do have <span style="font-family: inherit;">quite</span> a good idea of some of the ways individual and collective responses can do harm.</div>
</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
So yes, I have thought about your questions - my answers and my response to you is deeply intertwined in the experiences I've had, the conversations I've had about those experiences, and the reading I've done.* However, I am being a little bit more focused in my response than you were in your post. I am very suspicious of attempts to broaden discussions of intimate abuse and abuse of power, to a wider idea of bad things people have done. Men who use the power that our sexist and misogynist society gives them to hurt women generally find it easy to do so, and get a lot of support when they're challenged. I believe that that social context is important. I am going to focus this post on responses to men who abuse women, because that was the situation that triggered your post and it's what I have most experience with. <br />
<br />
I will provide direct answers to your questions the end of the post. First, I want to outline the ways I disagree with the premise of your post, and why some parts of it I disagreed with so strongly that I felt driven to spend the last few days planning and writing this reply. You ask:<br />
<blockquote>
How can we create processes for accountability? Feminists often discuss crimes like partner violence and sexual assault. Our focus is on helping survivors of these crimes, just as it should be. I personally have been trained as a rape crisis counselor, and I have volunteered in that capacity (if you’re interested in feminist activism, then I really encourage you to look into doing the same). And the history of feminism includes convincing people to actually care about and recognize the trauma of rape: Rape Trauma Syndrome was first defined and discussed in the 1970s.<br />
<br />
But perhaps because of our focus on helping and protecting survivors, I rarely see feminist discussions of how to deal with people who have committed crimes. In fact, I rarely see any discussions of how to deal with that, aside from sending people to jail. Let me just say that <a href="http://chicagopiccollective.com/resources/pic-zine/">problems with the prison-industrial complex</a> are their own thing—but even aside from those, the vast majority of rapes and assaults and other forms of gender-based violence go unprosecuted.</blockquote>
I think other people have already pointed out whose work you rendered invisible in this section, but I want to take it in a slightly different direction. Here you seem to suggest that responding to perpetrators and responding to survivors are two separate things and that feminists' focus on survivors has left little space for dealing with perpetrators. My experience has been that the best response to perpetrators have been more survivor centred, and the worst have been entirely perpetrator-centred. Why? Because abuse is about power and control - and centring perpetrators is giving them power and control.<br />
<br />
A basic assumption of your in the post is that good responses to perpetrators need to be centred around perpetrators. You barely mention survivors in your post, let alone other people who may have been hurt by similar behaviour and have boundaries and triggers and want to keep themselves safe. Men who use the power society gave them to hurt women can do so because their experiences are centred in society. I think centring perpetrators makes it harder for them to change, not easier. <br />
<blockquote>
“Accountability teams” are one way I’ve heard of for dealing with this: whether support groups of perpetrators who share their experiences with making amends and changing their ways, or groups of friends who assist a perpetrator with those processes. I would like to see more and larger discussions about those teams, and more acknowledgement that change is possible.</blockquote>
<br />
<div>
'Accountability teams' sound great - but I'm pretty sceptical of them. When I've known support groups set up formally around perpetrators, they have become advocacy groups for those perpetrators. One man I know, who was part of 'support group' for a perpetrator rang up individual members of a collective who had decided that the perpetrator was not welcome in their space; he attempted to pressure each individual member, and ignored a woman who repeatedly stated "I'm not comfortable with this" and kept trying to pressure her. Likewise, I'm reasonably familiar with government funded programmes which act broadly like the perpetrator groups you describe above. From what I know of the research, they're not particularly effective, and there is some suggestion that they actually make people better abusers.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
We live in a world with a profound level of ignorance about intimate abuse, and an awful lot of myths that many people believe. In my experience, perpetrators who don't want to change have found it easy to surround themselves with friends who support their worldview in some way. This makes sense - if you're someone who doesn't want to be abusive, you are likely to have among your friends people who will support you in meaningful ways, but if you don't want to change, then it's very easy to find people who will act as your apologists. Those who surround themselves with apologists will generally be happy with presenting themselves as trying to change - and use any support group to bolster that claim.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<div>
This doesn't mean that I don't believe in support for perpetrators who are genuinely trying to change. I just have known far more perpetrators who were trying to persuade people that they were genuinely trying to change, than those who have genuinely tried to change. And those who are not trying to change have tended to use systems that have been set up to punish women they have abused. </div>
</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
I can imagine a time, or a circumstance, when I would have been excited about 'accountability teams'. I think our disagreement there is just a sign about how many layers of abuse apologist bullshit I have found around every abusive man I have known. However, my disagreement to what you said next is more fundamental: </div>
<blockquote>
If we can’t create this kind of process, then how can we expect to create real change around these crimes? How can we expect perpetrators of violence to work on themselves if we can’t give them the space to work? Why should someone work for forgiveness if they know forgiveness can never come?</blockquote>
</div>
<div>
I want to untangle this, because there are a lot of different ideas here. First of all, when it comes to feminist blogs, there is no 'we', in fact when it comes to communities (which after all are informal sets of relationships with non-formalised power and decision making) there is no 'we'. There can be no 'we' without a collective decision making process - just a false 'we' people talking on behalf of others.<br />
<br />
I agree that perpetrators need space and resources to change, but the biggest barrier to that is generally that they are surrounded by apologists and cultural narratives that justify their behaviour. Outsiders can't intentionally clear that away, they can only offer alternatives.<br />
<br />
But what I really disagree with is the idea that abusive men should be working for forgiveness, let alone your conclusion that that means people need to forgive.<br />
<br />
As others have pointed out forgiveness has a lot of religious overtones and baggage, it's a narrow way to frame responses to abusive men, that will only speak to particular people. However, even if I translate it to language that resonates more with me, rather than forgiveness I would talk about 'being OK with someone', I still think you are talking about deeply personal decisions and boundaries that people can only draw for themselves. For example, seven years ago I stayed silent, when a woman with black eyes told me it was an accident, even though I knew that wasn't true. I have realised, over the years, that <a href="http://capitalismbad.blogspot.com/2007/09/mistake-i-hope-i-only-make-once.html">I am never going to be OK</a> with what I did. I also realised that that meant I was never going to be OK with this woman's boyfriend, because I'm not going to hold myself responsible for my inaction around abuse, longer than I'm going to hold the man who did it (who has changed more than most men I know who have committed intimate violence - although he has behaved in deeply problematic ways much more recently than seven years ago).<br />
<br />
Perpetrators should not be working for forgiveness, because forgiveness is deeply personal. But more than that I'm incredibly wary of the idea that abusers should be working on stopping hurting people, for any kind of reward, including changing the way people think of them. <br />
<br />
One group response I saw from a distance used their silence over a rapist (and were generally very good at silencing other people) to try and get him to attend an anti-sexual-violence programme. They held out that they would keep his abuse from going too public and got him to take certain steps. It was, obviously, a disaster - change is fucking difficult and people have to really want to do it. If you try and use leverage you have over someone to make them change (particularly someone manipulative, as most successful abusers are) then you are going to be unsuccessful.<br />
<br />
An easy path back to everything being OK, is often what abusive men who don't take their abuse seriously (but don't necessarily deny it) - want. I've known an abusive man demand this, and punish the survivor because he didn't get it. He used all ll those subtle talking to friend of friends ways that it's so easy for abusers to punish survirors particularly if other people let them. One group I know set the simple requirement "you tell us when you think you are ready to come back" and never heard from two different men again. I think it's important not to offer short-cuts or a path to people being OK - learning to live with what you've done and other people's reaction to what you've done is a perpetrator's own messy work.<br />
<br />
*********<br />
<div>
<br /></div>
However, none of that was why your post troubled me so much. You wrote it in response to people who were part of a feminist space and were outraged at the way you had centred in that space a man who had tried to murder his girlfriend. You were explicit both at feministe, and your place, that criticisms of that man bothered you, and shut that criticism down.<br />
Then you wrote a post that is incredibly dismissive of people who disagree with you:<br />
<blockquote>
But I hope I can dim the flamewar into a lantern to illuminate issues that actually matter.</blockquote>
<blockquote>
I believe that the politics of this situation are mostly a cheap distraction from truth and honor.</blockquote>
You go further, you go into some detail about why you think Hugo has changed and explicitly argue that your view of Hugo should be other's view of Hugo:</div>
<div>
<blockquote>
<span style="background-color: white; color: #101010; font-family: Georgia, Times, serif; font-size: 14px; line-height: 21px;">Other feminists have been angrily emailing me, Tweeting at me, etc with things like “FUCK YOU FOR PROTECTING THIS WOLF IN SHEEP’S CLOTHING.” But I have seen no evidence that Hugo hasn’t made an honest and sustained effort at recovery and accountability.</span><span style="background-color: white; color: #101010; font-family: Georgia, Times, serif; font-size: 14px; line-height: 21px;"> </span></blockquote>
</div>
<div>
Your entire post reads, to me, like an argument that people who who don't agree with you about Hugo's transformation, or the relevance of Hugo's transformation about the way he has treated should not hold or express those views (partly because you don't spend much time trying to persuade people on either of these points). You are demanding a 'we' without a collective decision making process. <br />
<br />
To explain why I think this is the most anti-feminist position that I have ever read on Feministe I have to tell a story.<br />
<br />
In 2006, a man named Ira hit his girlfriend when they were breaking up (he did this in a supposedly radical social centre - he was not the first man to assault his girlfriend in that social centre). After they broke up the girlfriend (who I will call Anne for the purposes of the post, although that's not her name) named the abuse within the relationship. Ira had been emotionally, physically and sexually abusive. <br />
<br />
Ira had many defenders, and responses to the abuse focused on him (in fact a lot of my caution about ideas like accountability teams, and my firmness that all responses have to be survivor centred come from this experience). He was exceptionally good at using mutual acquaintances (and there were many) to punish Anne. He never made amends with Anne, or anyone else. He did what most abusers who I've known who were seriously challenged do - he left town.<br />
<br />
Apparently in this new place, he talked a good game. He admitted to some of what he'd done, and presented himself as a reformed man. He didn't need to make meaningful change, he just needed to present himself as someone who had done so.<br />
<br />
In 2009, about three years after they broke up he was part of organising climate camp. This was supposed to bring people from all around the country to Wellington, where Anne was living. Anne wanted to go to the camp, but she did not want to be around him. She wrote to various people, including the safer spaces team, outlining the situation and asking if he could not come. She got nothing back but vagueness and an argument that they could not do anything because the camp did not exist yet.<br />
<br />
One of the arguments of the safer spaces team, which included people who claimed that they were feminists, was that they had talked to Ira and were convinced that he had changed. They believed, or at least acted as if it was true, that it was their belief about him was important. They ignored the view of one of the people he had abused, and many other women who felt unsafe around him.<br />
<br />
It got messy from there. Ira left, but only after <a href="http://capitalismbad.blogspot.com/2009/12/on-people-being-brave.html">a protest</a>. A woman who had been part of protesting Ira's actions was kicked out of climate camp by the safer spaces committee for being 'abusive' because she yelled at a man for hugging her when she didn't want to be hugged. Ira got someone connected with Climate Camp to harass Anne - like I said he was good at getting mutual acquaintances to punish her.<br />
<br />
The safer spaces committee had made it clear where they stood when they decided that it was their view on whether or not Ira had changed that mattered.<br />
<br />
*********<br />
<br />
Your post read to me as taking exactly the same position as the climate camp safer spaces committee. You appeared to be arguing that your view that Hugo Schwyzer was reformed, and that his reforming mattered was important. Why?<br />
<br />
Everything about your post oozes pressure. When you argue: "Why should someone work for forgiveness if they know forgiveness can never come?" You are arguing that people should forgive abusive men, because it's necessary for them to change.<br />
<br />
There is no space in your post for survivors. Either direct survivors of Hugo's actions, or survivors of similar violence. There is no space for people to draw their own boundaries around an abusive man. Indeed nothing appears to matter in your post except the perpetrator, and his path to forgiveness. There is no way of getting a unified response - of promising survivors' forgiveness - which doesn't involve asking or demanding that some people ignore their own boundaries. <br />
<br />
There is nothing new or transformative in arguing that survivors and those who care about their abuse, should not have boundaries because other people believe that the man has changed. Just a month ago I was in a meeting where someone argued that as far as we knew <a href="http://capitalismbad.blogspot.com/2011/09/open-letter-about-omar-hamed.html">Omar Hamed</a> hadn't tried to rape anyone all year, and therefore it was divisive to argue that he should not be welcome at our political event.<br />
<br />
I believe that part of being OK with an abusive man, has to be accepting that other people may not be OK and respecting their boundaries.<br />
<br /></div>
<div>
To pressure women to be OK, act OK, or pretend to be or act OK around a man who has been abusive towards woman, is a profoundly anti-feminist act. That pressure cannot be part of anything that is truly justice, or truly transformative. </div>
<div>
<br />
*********
<br />
<br /></div>
<div>
I don't have a generic answer about how I'd act if someone I cared about had raped someone. There are too many variables. Obviously if anyone came to me seeking absolution, I would tell them that is not something I can give. But, if I decided that I was OK continuing the relationship then I would tell him that he needed to respect people's boundaries around him, that some people would never be OK with him, and that he needed to find a way of being that wouldn't pressure other people and their boundaries (and he would have to be on board with that for me to continue the relationship). I would respect other people's boundaries around him, and try to ensure that I didn't put direct or indirect pressure on them.<br />
<br />
I feel incredibly lucky, ten years down the track, that I have never had to respond to intimate violence from a man I cared about. But I have seen the harm that women do to survivors of violence in defence of men they care about. I've seen manipulative men get women to do their dirty work. I've seen the way 'he's changed' has been used by other women to pressure both direct survivors, and women who are uncomfortable with abusive men more generally. I hope I have learned enough to recognise those roles and refuse them.</div>
<blockquote>
Do we actually believe that people can change? If so, how do we want them to show us they’ve changed? Is absolution possible? Who decides the answers to these questions?</blockquote>
In reverse order, groups that have genuine collective decision making processes can make group answers to these questions. Otherwise the decisions can only be individual.<br />
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Absolution is a religious idea that is not compatible with liberation. Whatever we have done, we have done. Nothing and no-one can stop us from being the person who has done the worst actions we have taken.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Abusive men show me that they've changed when they stop hurting women and don't use intimediaries to do their dirty work. If an abusive man was OK with people talking about their abuse, was OK with people not being OK with it, and understood that responses to their abuse cannot be all about them, but about the people they hurt, then I'd probably be willing to believe that he'd changed.<br />
<div>
<br />
And yes - I do think people can change. I think feminists have to believe in the possibility of abusive men changing otherwise there's no hope but a separatist commune. </div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
But I won't stake anything on that belief, not anyone's safety, or comfort, or boundaries. I don't like the odds. Nobody knows how to stop someone from abusing their power, and most attempts to do so are failures (that's from friends who have worked in the field and reviewed the research).</div>
<div>
<div>
<br /></div>
</div>
<div>
I know this post sounds despairing. Believe me when I say none of the ways that abusive men I've known have responded to being challenged has given me any reason to hope. </div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
But still I hope. And it is that hope that lead me to write this post. That hope that makes me believe that it is worth writing about my experiences and more and less harmful ways of dealing with abusive men.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
In recognition that we are part of the same struggle,</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Maia</div>
<br />
* I haven't read the book <a href="http://www.southendpress.org/2010/items/87941">The Revolution Starts at Home</a> yet, but I have read the <a href="http://www.incite-national.org/media/docs/0985_revolution-starts-at-home.pdf">zine</a> (warning that link is a pdf) and recommend it, even though as this post probably shows I am deeply unsure about any way forward. I should point out that one of the problems with the post I am responding to that other people have discussed is the way it renders invisible the work of WoC dealing with issues that you say feminists don't deal with.</div>Maiahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17212711843307060731noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17759756.post-52837936162844154292011-12-10T15:19:00.000+13:002011-12-10T15:21:15.154+13:00Scarlet RoadI have seen this trailer posted on tumblr and blogs a few times:<br />
<br />
<iframe allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="225" mozallowfullscreen="" src="http://player.vimeo.com/video/23523628?title=0&byline=0&portrait=0" webkitallowfullscreen="" width="400"></iframe><br />
<a href="http://vimeo.com/23523628">Scarlet Road Video</a> from <a href="http://vimeo.com/user6722674">Paradigm Pictures</a> on <a href="http://vimeo.com/">Vimeo</a>.<br />
<br />
Something about the way it was posted as an awesome exciting and sex positive feminist trailer bothered me, but I hadn't figured out just what it was. The post on <a href="http://jezebel.com/5863635/the-awesome-sex-worker-who-loves-disabled-clients">Jezebel</a> reminded me of the sort of comment that I've seen in a few places (and I expect nothing from Jezebel, but they're not the only people who have written about it like this). <br />
<br />
A post on the <a href="http://www.thefword.org.uk/blog/2011/12/youre_frighteni">The F-Word</a> responded to Jezebel directly:<br />
<blockquote>
I then read in <a href="http://jezebel.com/5863635/the-awesome-sex-worker-who-loves-disabled-clients">Jezebel</a> about a sex worker who is awesome because she works with disabled clients, which apparently makes her intriguing.<br />
<br />
And I started to wonder, what do you think of us? Of me? In these three stages, the mainstream, and the left-wing, tell me that I am inferior, and I am other. So very, very other.</blockquote>
I share Philippa's concern with the way people who celebrate this trailer present disabled people and their sexuality, and I want to unpack why I was so troubled by the many people who posed this with the idea that it was awesome, exciting and amazing.<br />
<br />
********<br />
<br />
At this movie's centre is a paradox. It's argument is that men with disability need to express their sexuality just like everyone else. However, the existence of the movie posits sex with people with disabilities as different. This trailer, and the people posting it, appear to believe that sex work with men with disabilities is in some important way different from other sex work. The Jezebel post described her as 'awesome' based on nothing but the trailer. None of this makes sense if you genuinely believe what the trailer is presenting as the central premise of the documentary.<br />
<br />
Of course the reality is that disabled people are de-sexualised by society, there sexuality is denied, and the very limited idea of sex, sexuality and desire that is promoted in our society has no room for them. That's the social model of disability - disabled people's sexuality is not different because of their bodies, but because of how society responds to their bodies.<br />
<br />
The paradox could be undone with media that centres the experiences of people with disabilities. A story which starts from them could show that there is nothing intrinsically different between disabled people's sexuality and non-disabled people's sexuality - but there is a profound difference in how their bodies and sexuality is treated. <br />
<br />
However, by centring this documentary around an able-bodied women, all that happens is the paradox is reinforced, she is awesome because of what she does. <br />
<br />
********<br />
<br />
The trailer talks about 'people with disabilities' - but it portrays and focuses on men with disabilities. Obviously as a feminist I have a problem anytime that happens, but rendering women with disabilities invisible in this context reinforces damaging and pervasive ideas about women's sexuality and about disability. <br />
<br />
This is not the first piece of media, which has discussed men with disabilities' sexuality and sex work in a way that makes women with disabilities invisible. I've been keeping an eye on these stories for at least ten years, and there is a pattern. Every so often some media outlet puts out a story about men with disabilities and sex work, often crass and offensive, sometimes in a faux 'it makes you think' kind of way about the welfare state's interaction with legal sex work. This trailer is less awful on those grounds - but it should also be seen as part of an existing tradition. <br />
<br />
Why is the media always the same? Why is it unthinkable and unprintable that women with disabilities have sexual desire. To understand that we have to look at the intersection between dominant ideas about disability and dominant ideas about women's sexuality.<br />
<br />
One of the most fundamental (and damaging) ideas in our existing understanding of sexuality is that men desire and women are desired. This is reflected in a lot of our language about sexuality (think about how the phrase 'sexy' is used by and about women) and the way sexuality is understood in public discourses.<br />
<br />
An identical video where the genders which switched, would not have the same feel good response. Because viewers would assume that the women with disabilities portrayed wanted to be desired as well as have their desires met. In reality of course, most people want both to desire and to be desired. That people with disabilities might desire requires a much smaller change to our understanding of sexuality than that people of disabilities might be desirable.<br />
<br />
Therefore the invisibility of women with disabilities in discussions about disability and sexuality, is about the sexual double standard and is based on accepting that women don't desire. But it is also about bounding and limiting the discussion of disability and sexuality to desire, not desirability, and cutting off the possibility that we might challenge our idea of desirability.<br />
<br />
Ultimately it's a failure of imagination. When I say I believe another world is possible, I mean one where women desire and men are desired, and where disability is not constructed as antithetical to either.Maiahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17212711843307060731noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17759756.post-14396770590452835132011-12-02T15:36:00.001+13:002011-12-02T15:36:17.259+13:00Support locked-out workers<br />
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: 'lucida grande', tahoma, verdana, arial, sans-serif; font-size: x-small;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="line-height: 16px;">111 Meat workers are still locked-out from the jobs at in Rangitikei. They've been more than six weeks without wages and they need support.</span></span><br />
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: 'lucida grande', tahoma, verdana, arial, sans-serif; font-size: x-small;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="line-height: 16px;"><br /></span></span><br />
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: 'lucida grande', tahoma, verdana, arial, sans-serif; font-size: x-small;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="line-height: 16px;">This weekend is a national day of fund-raising and action in support of the locked-out workers. McDonalds are being targetted, as they are one of the primary customers of the company. There are events organised all over the country:</span></span><br />
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: 'lucida grande', tahoma, verdana, arial, sans-serif; font-size: x-small;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="line-height: 16px;"><br /></span></span><br />
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="background-color: white; font-family: 'lucida grande', tahoma, verdana, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 16px;"><br /></span><br />
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="background-color: white; font-family: 'lucida grande', tahoma, verdana, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 16px;">Whangarei</span><br style="background-color: white; font-family: 'lucida grande', tahoma, verdana, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 16px; text-align: left;" /><span class="Apple-style-span" style="background-color: white; font-family: 'lucida grande', tahoma, verdana, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 16px; text-align: left;">---------------------------------------</span><br style="background-color: white; font-family: 'lucida grande', tahoma, verdana, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 16px; text-align: left;" /><span class="Apple-style-span" style="background-color: white; font-family: 'lucida grande', tahoma, verdana, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 16px; text-align: left;">10:00: McDonalds Whangarei, Bank Street – Mehau, mehow@riseup.net, 0226894509</span><br style="background-color: white; font-family: 'lucida grande', tahoma, verdana, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 16px; text-align: left;" /><br style="background-color: white; font-family: 'lucida grande', tahoma, verdana, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 16px; text-align: left;" /><span class="Apple-style-span" style="background-color: white; font-family: 'lucida grande', tahoma, verdana, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 16px; text-align: left;">West Auckland</span><br style="background-color: white; font-family: 'lucida grande', tahoma, verdana, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 16px; text-align: left;" /><span class="Apple-style-span" style="background-color: white; font-family: 'lucida grande', tahoma, verdana, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 16px; text-align: left;">---------------------------------------</span><br style="background-color: white; font-family: 'lucida grande', tahoma, verdana, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 16px; text-align: left;" /><span class="Apple-style-span" style="background-color: white; font-family: 'lucida grande', tahoma, verdana, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 16px; text-align: left;">10:00: McDonalds Lincoln Rd, CNR Lincoln Rd & Moselle Ave, Carol Gilmour, CarolG@nzno.org.nz, 0274 827 030</span><br style="background-color: white; font-family: 'lucida grande', tahoma, verdana, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 16px; text-align: left;" /><br style="background-color: white; font-family: 'lucida grande', tahoma, verdana, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 16px; text-align: left;" /><span class="Apple-style-span" style="background-color: white; font-family: 'lucida grande', tahoma, verdana, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 16px; text-align: left;">Central Auckland</span><br style="background-color: white; font-family: 'lucida grande', tahoma, verdana, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 16px; text-align: left;" /><span class="Apple-style-span" style="background-color: white; font-family: 'lucida grande', tahoma, verdana, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 16px; text-align: left;">---------------------------------------</span><br style="background-color: white; font-family: 'lucida grande', tahoma, verdana, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 16px; text-align: left;" /><span class="Apple-style-span" style="background-color: white; font-family: 'lucida grande', tahoma, verdana, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 16px; text-align: left;">11:00: McDonalds Grey Lynn, 102-112 Great North Road - Louisa Jones, louisa.jones@epmu.org.nz, 027 590 0071</span><br style="background-color: white; font-family: 'lucida grande', tahoma, verdana, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 16px; text-align: left;" /><br style="background-color: white; font-family: 'lucida grande', tahoma, verdana, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 16px; text-align: left;" /><span class="Apple-style-span" style="background-color: white; font-family: 'lucida grande', tahoma, verdana, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 16px; text-align: left;">Hamilton</span><br style="background-color: white; font-family: 'lucida grande', tahoma, verdana, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 16px; text-align: left;" /><span class="Apple-style-span" style="background-color: white; font-family: 'lucida grande', tahoma, verdana, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 16px; text-align: left;">---------------------------------------</span><br style="background-color: white; font-family: 'lucida grande', tahoma, verdana, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 16px; text-align: left;" /><span class="Apple-style-span" style="background-color: white; font-family: 'lucida grande', tahoma, verdana, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 16px; text-align: left;">12:00: McDonalds Five cross roads, 231 Peach Grove Road - Jared Philips, jared@unite.org.nz, 029-494-9863</span><br style="background-color: white; font-family: 'lucida grande', tahoma, verdana, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 16px; text-align: left;" /><br style="background-color: white; font-family: 'lucida grande', tahoma, verdana, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 16px; text-align: left;" /><span class="Apple-style-span" style="background-color: white; font-family: 'lucida grande', tahoma, verdana, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 16px; text-align: left;">Tauranga</span><br style="background-color: white; font-family: 'lucida grande', tahoma, verdana, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 16px; text-align: left;" /><span class="Apple-style-span" style="background-color: white; font-family: 'lucida grande', tahoma, verdana, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 16px; text-align: left;">---------------------------------------</span><br style="background-color: white; font-family: 'lucida grande', tahoma, verdana, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 16px; text-align: left;" /><span class="Apple-style-span" style="background-color: white; font-family: 'lucida grande', tahoma, verdana, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 16px; text-align: left;">12:00: McDonalds Tauranga at CNR 11th Ave & Cameron Road - Jill Kerr, 021 626 094 </span><br style="background-color: white; font-family: 'lucida grande', tahoma, verdana, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 16px; text-align: left;" /><br style="background-color: white; font-family: 'lucida grande', tahoma, verdana, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 16px; text-align: left;" /><span class="Apple-style-span" style="background-color: white; font-family: 'lucida grande', tahoma, verdana, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 16px; text-align: left;">New Plymouth</span><br style="background-color: white; font-family: 'lucida grande', tahoma, verdana, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 16px; text-align: left;" /><span class="Apple-style-span" style="background-color: white; font-family: 'lucida grande', tahoma, verdana, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 16px; text-align: left;">---------------------------------------</span><br style="background-color: white; font-family: 'lucida grande', tahoma, verdana, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 16px; text-align: left;" /><span class="Apple-style-span" style="background-color: white; font-family: 'lucida grande', tahoma, verdana, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 16px; text-align: left;">11:00: McDonalds New Plymouth on Cnr Eliott and Leach Sts – Sam Jones, sam.jones@sfwu.org.nz, 0275448563 (pls txt) </span><br style="background-color: white; font-family: 'lucida grande', tahoma, verdana, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 16px; text-align: left;" /><br style="background-color: white; font-family: 'lucida grande', tahoma, verdana, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 16px; text-align: left;" /><span class="Apple-style-span" style="background-color: white; font-family: 'lucida grande', tahoma, verdana, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 16px; text-align: left;">Manawatu</span><br style="background-color: white; font-family: 'lucida grande', tahoma, verdana, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 16px; text-align: left;" /><span class="Apple-style-span" style="background-color: white; font-family: 'lucida grande', tahoma, verdana, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 16px; text-align: left;">---------------------------------------</span><br style="background-color: white; font-family: 'lucida grande', tahoma, verdana, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 16px; text-align: left;" /><span class="Apple-style-span" style="background-color: white; font-family: 'lucida grande', tahoma, verdana, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 16px; text-align: left;">11:00: McDonalds Palmerston North, Cnr Rangitikei & Featherston Sts - Simon Oosterman, cmplockout@nzctu.org.nz, 021 885 410</span><br style="background-color: white; font-family: 'lucida grande', tahoma, verdana, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 16px; text-align: left;" /><br style="background-color: white; font-family: 'lucida grande', tahoma, verdana, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 16px; text-align: left;" /><span class="Apple-style-span" style="background-color: white; font-family: 'lucida grande', tahoma, verdana, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 16px; text-align: left;">1:00: McDonalds Bulls, 95 Bridge St, Bulls – Wayne Ruscoe, wayne.ruscoe@epmu.org.nz, 0275910056</span><br style="background-color: white; font-family: 'lucida grande', tahoma, verdana, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 16px; text-align: left;" /><br style="background-color: white; font-family: 'lucida grande', tahoma, verdana, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 16px; text-align: left;" /><span class="Apple-style-span" style="background-color: white; font-family: 'lucida grande', tahoma, verdana, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 16px; text-align: left;">1:00: McDonalds Feilding, 78 Kimbolton Rd – Joceyln Pratt, jocelynp@nzdwu.org.nz, 021 551 991 </span><br style="background-color: white; font-family: 'lucida grande', tahoma, verdana, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 16px; text-align: left;" /><br style="background-color: white; font-family: 'lucida grande', tahoma, verdana, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 16px; text-align: left;" /><span class="Apple-style-span" style="background-color: white; font-family: 'lucida grande', tahoma, verdana, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 16px; text-align: left;">1:00: McDonalds Levin, Cnr Stanley & Oxford Sts – Simon Oosterman, cmplockout@nzctu.org.nz, 021 885 410 </span><br style="background-color: white; font-family: 'lucida grande', tahoma, verdana, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 16px; text-align: left;" /><br style="background-color: white; font-family: 'lucida grande', tahoma, verdana, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 16px; text-align: left;" /><span class="Apple-style-span" style="background-color: white; font-family: 'lucida grande', tahoma, verdana, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 16px; text-align: left;">1:00: McDonalds Wanganui, 314 Victoria Street – Terangi Wroe - 0220165199</span><br style="background-color: white; font-family: 'lucida grande', tahoma, verdana, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 16px; text-align: left;" /><br style="background-color: white; font-family: 'lucida grande', tahoma, verdana, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 16px; text-align: left;" /><span class="Apple-style-span" style="background-color: white; font-family: 'lucida grande', tahoma, verdana, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 16px; text-align: left;">Hutt Valley</span><br style="background-color: white; font-family: 'lucida grande', tahoma, verdana, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 16px; text-align: left;" /><span class="Apple-style-span" style="background-color: white; font-family: 'lucida grande', tahoma, verdana, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 16px; text-align: left;">---------------------------------------</span><br style="background-color: white; font-family: 'lucida grande', tahoma, verdana, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 16px; text-align: left;" /><span class="Apple-style-span" style="background-color: white; font-family: 'lucida grande', tahoma, verdana, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 16px; text-align: left;">11:00: McDonalds Petone, 29 Victoria Street - Toby Boraman, ffyddless@yahoo.co.nz</span><br style="background-color: white; font-family: 'lucida grande', tahoma, verdana, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 16px; text-align: left;" /><br style="background-color: white; font-family: 'lucida grande', tahoma, verdana, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 16px; text-align: left;" /><span class="Apple-style-span" style="background-color: white; font-family: 'lucida grande', tahoma, verdana, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 16px; text-align: left;">Wellington</span><br style="background-color: white; font-family: 'lucida grande', tahoma, verdana, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 16px; text-align: left;" /><span class="Apple-style-span" style="background-color: white; font-family: 'lucida grande', tahoma, verdana, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 16px; text-align: left;">---------------------------------------</span><br style="background-color: white; font-family: 'lucida grande', tahoma, verdana, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 16px; text-align: left;" /><span class="Apple-style-span" style="background-color: white; font-family: 'lucida grande', tahoma, verdana, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 16px; text-align: left;">12:00: McDonalds Manners Mall, 55 Manners Street, Tali Williams, tali.williams@gmail.com, 021 204 4087</span><br style="background-color: white; font-family: 'lucida grande', tahoma, verdana, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 16px; text-align: left;" /><span class="Apple-style-span" style="background-color: white; font-family: 'lucida grande', tahoma, verdana, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 16px; text-align: left;"><br /></span><br />
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="background-color: white; font-family: 'lucida grande', tahoma, verdana, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 16px; text-align: left;">Greymouth</span><br style="background-color: white; font-family: 'lucida grande', tahoma, verdana, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 16px; text-align: left;" /><span class="Apple-style-span" style="background-color: white; font-family: 'lucida grande', tahoma, verdana, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 16px; text-align: left;">---------------------------------------</span><br style="background-color: white; font-family: 'lucida grande', tahoma, verdana, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 16px; text-align: left;" /><span class="Apple-style-span" style="background-color: white; font-family: 'lucida grande', tahoma, verdana, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 16px; text-align: left;">11:00 - McDonalds Greymouth, 57 Tainui Street – Garth Elliot, garth.elliot@epmu.org.nz - 0275900084 </span><br style="background-color: white; font-family: 'lucida grande', tahoma, verdana, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 16px; text-align: left;" /><br style="background-color: white; font-family: 'lucida grande', tahoma, verdana, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 16px; text-align: left;" /><span class="Apple-style-span" style="background-color: white; font-family: 'lucida grande', tahoma, verdana, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 16px; text-align: left;">Christchurch</span><br style="background-color: white; font-family: 'lucida grande', tahoma, verdana, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 16px; text-align: left;" /><span class="Apple-style-span" style="background-color: white; font-family: 'lucida grande', tahoma, verdana, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 16px; text-align: left;">---------------------------------------</span><br style="background-color: white; font-family: 'lucida grande', tahoma, verdana, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 16px; text-align: left;" /><span class="Apple-style-span" style="background-color: white; font-family: 'lucida grande', tahoma, verdana, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 16px; text-align: left;">10:00 – Banner making at Occupy Corner.</span><br style="background-color: white; font-family: 'lucida grande', tahoma, verdana, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 16px; text-align: left;" /><span class="Apple-style-span" style="background-color: white; font-family: 'lucida grande', tahoma, verdana, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 16px; text-align: left;">11:00: McDonalds Riccarton, CNR Riccarton Rd & Matipo St, Riccarton - Matt Jones, matthew@unite.org.nz, 029 201 3837</span><br style="background-color: white; font-family: 'lucida grande', tahoma, verdana, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 16px; text-align: left;" /><br style="background-color: white; font-family: 'lucida grande', tahoma, verdana, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 16px; text-align: left;" /><span class="Apple-style-span" style="background-color: white; font-family: 'lucida grande', tahoma, verdana, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 16px; text-align: left;">Dunedin</span><br style="background-color: white; font-family: 'lucida grande', tahoma, verdana, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 16px; text-align: left;" /><span class="Apple-style-span" style="background-color: white; font-family: 'lucida grande', tahoma, verdana, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 16px; text-align: left;">---------------------------------------</span><br style="background-color: white; font-family: 'lucida grande', tahoma, verdana, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 16px; text-align: left;" /><span class="Apple-style-span" style="background-color: white; font-family: 'lucida grande', tahoma, verdana, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 16px; text-align: left;">10:00: McDonalds George St Dunedin, 232 George Street - Malcolm Deans, mdeans@gardener.com, 0210566593</span><br style="background-color: white; font-family: 'lucida grande', tahoma, verdana, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 16px; text-align: left;" /><br style="background-color: white; font-family: 'lucida grande', tahoma, verdana, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 16px; text-align: left;" /><span class="Apple-style-span" style="background-color: white; font-family: 'lucida grande', tahoma, verdana, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 16px; text-align: left;">Invercargill</span><br style="background-color: white; font-family: 'lucida grande', tahoma, verdana, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 16px; text-align: left;" /><span class="Apple-style-span" style="background-color: white; font-family: 'lucida grande', tahoma, verdana, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 16px; text-align: left;">---------------------------------------</span><br style="background-color: white; font-family: 'lucida grande', tahoma, verdana, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 16px; text-align: left;" /><span class="Apple-style-span" style="background-color: white; font-family: 'lucida grande', tahoma, verdana, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 16px; text-align: left;">Dylan would like to attend a protest if someone can help him organise it: dylan_dogg@hotmail.com. </span><br />
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="background-color: white; font-family: 'lucida grande', tahoma, verdana, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 16px; text-align: left;"><br /></span><br />
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="background-color: white; font-family: 'lucida grande', tahoma, verdana, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 16px; text-align: left;">If you can't attend then donate some money (info on donating <a href="http://www.blogger.com/%3C/span%3Ehttp://union.org.nz/anzcolockout">here</a>)<span class="Apple-style-span" style="background-color: white; font-family: 'lucida grande', tahoma, verdana, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 16px;"> If employers discover they can starve workers into accepting wages 25% wage cuts then who is next?</span></span><br />Maiahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17212711843307060731noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17759756.post-67851217119161503642011-11-27T01:38:00.001+13:002011-11-27T02:07:52.531+13:00Reasons to be cheerfulI'm not feeling particularly cheerful tonight. You can read details of my not cheerfulness over at <a href="http://thehandmirror.blogspot.com/2011/11/7.html">The Hand Mirror</a>, where I live blogged the election.<br />
<br />
<br />
This parliament will be the first parliament for 12 years that does not have a majority for abortion law reform. There was never a majority to talk about abortion, or to have the debate, but there has been a majority that would support abortion law if they had to vote. That majority almost certainly no longer exists, thanks to the mob Winston Peters brought in, and the high vote for National. Important abortion rights advocates in the Labour party are gone: Steve Chadwick, Carol Beaumont and Carmel Sepoluni (although there is a small chance of either, but not both, of the last two getting in on the specials). While we can expect some turn-over and some of them to get back in this term, it won't change the fundamental maths and ability to add up to 61.<br />
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span><br />
While high National polling was inevitable, and under 48% is actually much less worse than it could be, the results themselves are pretty dire. My main hope for the evening was that both John Banks and Peter Dunne would lose their seat, that they didn't bring any cronies with them is not a particularly big silver lining. I did idly think "well it'd be funny if NZFirst got back in" in the last few days - I didn't mean it! That's all bad news. I'm not sad about Labour's collapse or glad about the Greens rise - apart from how it effects abortion politics. I would have liked to see Annette Sykes in there - although I'm sure she'll just as useful work from where she is now.<br />
<br />
I find the rise of the Conservative party pretty depressing - a sign that money can buy your votes. But also everything felt reactionary last night - and the news that almost 3% of people want National to be more reactionary than they are - is pretty depressing.<br />
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span><br />
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: inherit;">The coverage was also pretty reactionary. TVOne's election coverage was so bad that I considered advocating a shift to TV3 - where Paul Henry, John Tamihere, Chris Trotter and Rodney Hide waited for us. It was wall to wall bloke, bloke, bloke bloke, matey, bloke. Which was only emphasised when they brought on Jacinda Arden and Nikkie Kaye and talked about their looks, or had Petra Bagust circulating round a party. On top of that with Willie Jackson on TVOne, John Tamihere on TV3 and Derek Fox on Maori TV each channel had its own Clint Rickards apologist. I'm not surprised by the male centred nature of this coverage, but the programmers should be ashamed. </span><br />
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span><br />
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: inherit;">Having said that there are always some reas<span class="Apple-style-span" style="background-color: white;">ons to be cheerful. </span></span><br />
<br />
<ul>
<li><span class="Apple-style-span" style="line-height: 16px;">MMP is looking pretty safe.</span></li>
<li><span class="Apple-style-span" style="line-height: 16px;">Turn-out was low. I find knowing that 35% of eligible voters voted National much more reassuring than the near 50% you hear in the news.</span></li>
<li><span class="Apple-style-span" style="line-height: 16px;">National actually lost 100,000 votes over the last three years (Labour lost 200,000) </span></li>
<li><span class="Apple-style-span" style="line-height: 16px;">Don Brash is resigning his farcical time as ACT leader.</span></li>
<li><span class="Apple-style-span" style="line-height: 16px;">Paul "the most important thing to me that people in prison can't vote" Quinn is out of parliament, at least for now.</span></li>
<li><span class="Apple-style-span" style="line-height: 16px;">Paula Bennett may yet lose Waitakere - that would be a thing of beauty.</span></li>
<li><span class="Apple-style-span" style="line-height: 16px;">There are some strong advocates for abortion rights within the Green caucus.</span></li>
<li><span class="Apple-style-span" style="line-height: 16px;">Mojo Mathers should get in on the Specials. Having a deaf MP should have some pretty awesome flow-on effects when it comes to accessibility and entrenching NZ Sign as an official language.</span></li>
<li><span class="Apple-style-span" style="line-height: 16px;">Kelly Buchanan got 36 votes - so my friend should have had a pretty good night.</span></li>
</ul>
<div>
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="line-height: 16px;"><br /></span></div>
<div>
There's a more fundamental reason to be cheerful - and I'll expand on this tomorrow - we don't have to accept the world the politicians want to make. If voting is the most important political act you do, then election night is always going to be depressing. But if you dream of a world that is better, then there are going to plenty of opportunities to help make it over the next three years. After all the biggest steps towards women's liberation in this country were made under right-wing Male Chauvanist Piggy Muldoon. </div>Maiahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17212711843307060731noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17759756.post-15868735929636385932011-11-25T13:42:00.000+13:002011-11-25T14:17:00.128+13:00How I'm Voting<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">So in my last election related post before the polls I thought I'd describe my plans for tomorrow. </span><br />
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Georgia, serif; font-size: 16px;"><i><br /></i></span><br />
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Georgia, serif; font-size: 16px;"><i>Electorate Vote</i></span><br />
<div style="font-family: Georgia, serif; font-size: 16px; text-align: left;">
As I live in Wellington Central I can't use the ridiculously complex analysis I did of electorate seats. On top of that familiarity has certainly bred contempt when it comes to the parliamentary parties' candidates. </div>
<div style="font-family: Georgia, serif; font-size: 16px; text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div style="font-family: Georgia, serif; font-size: 16px; text-align: left;">
As it happens I can more easily make a case for voting for Paul Foster-Bell the National candidate than either Grant Robertson or James Shaw. If the polls were swinging differently Paul Foster-Bell could be a tactical abortion vote, but they're not so he's not. James Shaw appears to have been grown in a lab to personify everything those on the left criticise the Greens for.</div>
<div style="font-family: Georgia, serif; font-size: 16px; text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div style="font-family: Georgia, serif; font-size: 16px; text-align: left;">
Then there's Grant Robertson - who gets a lot of support round Wellington. I don't like him - not just because other people do - I think I sometimes come across as more contrarian than I am. But for actual good policy based reasons on an issue that is important to me. Grant Robertson was involved in designing the PBRF (performance based research fund) system that is currently doing such damage to tertiary education (and was always going to do damage in exactly the way that it did). And I am a little bit contrary so any time people on facebook are nice about him I mutter PBRF and get a little more entrenched. Plus my second rule of voting is "1984: Never forget, Never forgive." - and I take that very seriously.</div>
<div style="font-family: Georgia, serif; font-size: 16px; text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div style="font-family: Georgia, serif; font-size: 16px; text-align: left;">
So who am I going to vote for? I have two choices: Kelly Buchanan - the Alliance candidate I know and broadly agree with (she posted her responses to the Right to Life on <a href="http://thehandmirror.blogspot.com/2011/11/right-to-lifes-candidate-questionnaire.html">The Hand Mirror</a>). Or the Pirate Party candidate - because I believe new episodes of Joss Whedon TV shows are a fundamental human right.</div>
<div style="font-family: Georgia, serif; font-size: 16px; text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div style="font-family: Georgia, serif; font-size: 16px; text-align: left;">
I will probably vote for Kelly - mostly because I'm very good friends with her partner - and they're going to drink a shot every vote Kelly gets. It's been a hard year and it's time for my friend to have fun. Also I don't know the Pirate Party Candidate's position on abortion - and a girl has to have standards.</div>
<div style="font-family: Georgia, serif; font-size: 16px; text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div style="font-family: Georgia, serif; font-size: 16px; text-align: left;">
<i>Party Vote</i></div>
<div style="font-family: Georgia, serif; font-size: 16px; text-align: left;">
A few days ago my facebook status was "I think I'm a reasonably unprincipled voter; all I want is to vote for a left-wing party, where no-one in an achievable position on the list is anti-abortion or a rape apologist." So obviously I've been having trouble figuring out if I can vote at all.</div>
<div style="font-family: Georgia, serif; font-size: 16px; text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div style="font-family: Georgia, serif; font-size: 16px; text-align: left;">
Rule 2 obviously rules out Labour (and I'm looking for a left-wing party).<br />
<br />
I've written at some length with my problems with the Greens in general and Russel Norman <a href="http://capitalismbad.blogspot.com/2011/11/in-solidarity-with-russel-normans-ea.html">in particular</a>. But my not voting for the Greens this time is more fundamental, because my first rule of voting is "Tories are evil": </div>
<div style="font-family: Georgia, serif; font-size: 16px; text-align: left;">
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiG8CVZFpEWRUhJzMeNV2zWVOAxYWBIgfxLztJ9Li3VbgFNT9LCagzZZHA_8w41_U8fm948yRoK6mtyR6cr5Xbe0JTDs2CznpQwoqvPZkmeimtuu2UuSnWTCbXgvp5or-bB0JYw/s1600/defaced_48.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="215" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiG8CVZFpEWRUhJzMeNV2zWVOAxYWBIgfxLztJ9Li3VbgFNT9LCagzZZHA_8w41_U8fm948yRoK6mtyR6cr5Xbe0JTDs2CznpQwoqvPZkmeimtuu2UuSnWTCbXgvp5or-bB0JYw/s320/defaced_48.jpg" width="320" /></a></div>
<br />
I don't care it's a 1 in a 100 chance that the Greens will abstain on confidence and supply for a National party government after the election (and I think it may be higher than that) - it's still astronomically too high. </div>
<div style="font-family: Georgia, serif; font-size: 16px; text-align: left;">
<br />
So if I'm voting with my party vote I'm voting for Mana. I was doing a pretty good job of convincing myself to vote for the lizards so the wrong lizards don't get in. But then I read their policies. Now some Mana policies are great - the disability policy is radical, and clearly addresses many of the problems with the current system in a way that takes disabled people's lives and liberty really seriously. And (as you'd expect) their Te Reo and Te Tiriti policy are awesome. They released their Industrial Relations Policy today and it's very impressive (I am a little worried that a 25% loading which made casualised labour a legal category would entrench casualisation - but since it's not going to happen that's of rather minor concern).<br />
<br />
However, their education policy is just weird. In some places it is strangely specific, but it ignores or is unclear many of the really important education. So it's very clear that every school needs a community garden, but doesn't mention the level of the operation grant. It appears to be promoting a work for the student allowance system (but that isn't really clear). <br />
<br />
Then there's their National Standards policy: <br />
<blockquote>
Abolish National Standards and replace with information that lets parents know how well their children are doing compared to other children, nationally, without the bad effects of the current direction.</blockquote>
</div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<div style="font-family: Georgia, serif; font-size: 16px;">
<br /></div>
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Georgia, serif;">On one level the statement is so incoherent to be laughable: abolish National Standards, but standardise where children are nationally in a way that would magically get rid of unspecified 'bad effects'. This is such a damaging attitude to what education is for. The point of education should not be measuring children against other children - but about learning. Children differ so much in what they find hard and what they find easy, what they love and what they struggle with. I want an education system the values in every child what they are good at, and but also values learning and improving from where a child is. Measuring children with other children is the antithesis of that.</span><br />
<div style="font-family: Georgia, serif; font-size: 16px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="font-family: Georgia, serif; font-size: 16px;">
Their policy to make NZ tobacco free is so ridiculous that it's hard to know how to respond. The failure of prohibition is pretty well documented when it comes to alcohol and drugs. Criminalising marijuana has hardly been liberatory for anyone.</div>
<div style="font-family: Georgia, serif; font-size: 16px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="font-family: Georgia, serif; font-size: 16px;">
On one level it doesn't matter because it's never going to happen. But I think it shows a fundamentally problematic attitude towards working-class people's lives. Working-class people are making complex choices about their survival strategies and the path towards liberation involves fighting for more resources and more choices. Taking away the chance to find a break, breath deeply, and get a hit of nicotine so they can keep going from those who feel like they need it is not liberatory.* They're ignoring all that and instead asking how can we use the power of the state to get people to behave how we want them to behave?</div>
<div style="font-family: Georgia, serif; font-size: 16px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="font-family: Georgia, serif; font-size: 16px;">
With National Standards and Tobacco in particular - my problem is not just that the policy is bad, but that it shows a way of thinking about society and state roles that I fundamentally disagree with and makes me distrust the way they are thinking about politics. </div>
<div style="font-family: Georgia, serif; font-size: 16px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="font-family: Georgia, serif; font-size: 16px;">
See writing this I have almost persuaded myself not to vote for them. But I really do want to vote for the least worst option, and they are it. Unless something dramatic happens in the next 24 hours I'll party-vote Mana.</div>
<div style="font-family: Georgia, serif; font-size: 16px;">
<br /></div>
</div>
<div style="font-family: Georgia, serif; font-size: 16px; text-align: left;">
<i>Referendum Part 1</i></div>
<div style="font-family: Georgia, serif; font-size: 16px; text-align: left;">
MMP.<br />
<br />
(I can on occasion be brief)</div>
<div style="font-family: Georgia, serif; font-size: 16px; text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div style="font-family: Georgia, serif; font-size: 16px; text-align: left;">
<i>Referendum Part 2</i></div>
<div style="font-family: Georgia, serif; font-size: 16px; text-align: left;">
I think I've decided to vote for STV.</div>
<div style="font-family: Georgia, serif; font-size: 16px; text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div style="font-family: Georgia, serif; font-size: 16px; text-align: left;">
STV is the least bad of the four options. It also has the added advantage that it'll struggle against MMP, because then it'll be seen as just as (if not more complicated). In general I don't like it, because I think it kind of formalises protest votes and encourages (or forces in Australia) people to vote for candidates who will win, and it has a high threshold for minor parties. Although it would make voting on abortion easy.<br />
<br />
If SM was in the picture at all, I would consider voting FPP - but as the choice is between STV and FPP - it's pretty simple.<br />
<br />
I'll be live-blogging the election at The Hand Mirror. Expect mostly mockery, bile, depression, and obsessive attention to who is in parliament and where they stand on abortion.<br />
<br />
* I guess I should be clear here that I addiction isn't liberatory either. I totally support any moves that makes it harder for people to get addicted to ciagerettes and assistance towards quitting.</div>Maiahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17212711843307060731noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17759756.post-73508045836707919312011-11-21T20:29:00.001+13:002011-11-23T01:43:07.177+13:00An idiosyncratic guide to voting for abortion law reform: Part 2 - Electorates<br />
<br />
So yesterday I looked at the <a href="http://capitalismbad.blogspot.com/2011/11/idiosyncratic-guide-to-voting-pro.html">party vote</a> at this election. Today some thoughts on the electorate vote.<br />
<br />
It's fairly easy to vote on principal when it comes to the electorate vote. All you need to do is find out where your various candidates stand and then decide how you're going to vote accordingly. Which obviously isn't that easier because many candidates are not particularly willing to tell you where they stand on abortion. But if you can get information (and do share in the comments anything you have) voting on principal isn't complex. If you live in Rotorua choosing between Steve Chadwick and Todd McClay is clear - McClay has only voted on abortion once and voted reactionary. Although choosing what to do in Invercargill where Lesley Soper - known SPUCer, runs against <a href="http://www.vdig.net/hansard/content.jsp?id=87959">Eric Roy</a> would require careful inquisition of the minor candidates.<br />
<br />
What I'm going to concentrate in this post is how to vote tactically pro-choice in this election. For example, even if you know that Andrew Little has better politics on abortion law reform than <a href="http://righttolife.org.nz/2008/10/02/right-to-life-initiates-survey-of-all-general-election-candidates-on-life-issue-attitudes/">Jonathan Young</a> (which seems likely) - the reality is they're both probably going to be in parliament anyway. So you can vote on a principal basis on that occasion - but it's going to have very little tactical effect.<br />
<br />
This post is going to focus on marginal electorates where the local vote may have an impact on the make-up of parliament. A basic assumption is that the make-up of parliament is more important than whether a paticular MP has a label as the local MP. I know this is an assumption many in parliament don't share (see the ridiculous focus on New Plymouth or Auckland Central). But I think the make-up of parliament is what matters when it comes to abortion law reform. So what are the marginals seats where voting can make a difference to the make up of parliamentary support for Abortion Law Reform?<br />
<br />
<i>Ōhariu</i><br />
This is the simplest and most obvious - if you support abortion law reform vote Charles Chavel (I believe Katrina Shanks is also liberal for a National MP on abortion law, but she has a lesser chance of getting in). Peter Dunne is not as bad on the issue as he once was (the rumour is that in 2002 no move on abortion law was an unwritten part of United Future and Labour's coalition deal - this is ) and amusingly right to life are <a href="http://righttolife.org.nz/2011/11/07/peter-dunne-united-future-no-friend-to-the-unborn-child-or-family/">mad at him</a>. However, he is not a reliable on the issue, and likely to vote conservatively on incrementalist legislation. <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ysCcuNvjY-Q">Charles Chavel</a> is an advocate. Getting rid of Peter Dunne would be a victory for abortion law reform - and supporters of abortion law reform can vote for Charles Chavel with a clear conscious.<br />
<br />
I would vote for Charles Chavel and I can't bring myself to vote for the Greens because they're too right wing (and because of Russel Norman).<br />
<br />
<i>Epsom</i><br />
The same principle applies in Epsom as John Banks is a known reactionary and Don Brash is completely incoherent on the matter. This applies even though Paul Goldsmith's position is less clear than Charles Chavel's.<br />
<br />
<i>Te Tai Tokerau</i><br />
My understanding is that Hone is broadly supportive of abortion rights. He would bring in other candidates who are more likely to support abortion law reform than the rest of parliament. Kelvin Davis will be in anyway. From an abortion politics point of view, this is the reverse of Epsom.<br />
<br />
<i>Rimutaka</i><br />
This one is also simple for another reason: Jonathon Fletcher is incredibly reactionary on abortion (see the smiley faces on <a href="http://valueyourvote.org.nz/candidates/jonathan-fletcher">Value your vote</a>). He is number 67 on the National party list - and so won't get in unless he wins the seat.<br />
<br />
Chris Hipkins' ability to enter parliament is also looking shaky - Labour need to do better than the polls say for him to be in on the list (but not by much). I don't know where he stands on abortion (and would like to know), but he's not going to be as conservative as Jonathon Fletcher.<br />
<br />
<i>West-Coast Tasman</i><br />
Here is where things start to get nice and complex. Both Damien O'Connor and Chris Auchinvole are conservative on abortion. However, Chris Auchivole is 43 on National's list and looking pretty safe, whereas Damien O'Connor is not on Labour's list. Therefore, in terms of abortion law reform there is definitely a reason to not vote for Damien O'Connor and a reason to vote for Chris Auchinvole to keep Damien O'Connor out.<br />
<br />
On top of that there is another way of looking at the make-up of parliament. As well as looking at who we're bringing in on electorate seats, we also need to consider which list seat candidate they're replacing. Now this gets super complicated - but I think from the point of view of abortion law reform the people who are looking tantalising close but not close enough are Steve Chadwick and Kate Sutton - at number 34 and 35. Every electorate seat that Labour wins from someone who is further down the list than they are makes it harder for Steve Chadwick and Kate Sutton to get in. If you're voting in marginal electorates consider where the Labour candidate is on the list before voting for them (note that Chris Hipkins is further up the list than Steve Chadwick and Kate Sutton, otherwise I wouldn't be as supportive of voting for him in Rimutaka).<br />
<br />
Voting against Damien O'Connor doesn't just keep an anti-abortion voice out of parliament - it also makes it more likely that abortion law reform advocates will get in.<br />
<br />
<i>Mana</i><br />
I think there is both a principled and a practical reason for voting for Hekia Parata in Mana. The first is that my understanding is that she is more liberal than Kris Faafoi on the issue (who was both incoherent and reactionary when he talked about parental notification in May- does anyone have the link - I ranted about it on facebook but didn't keep a link). The principled issue needs more research and I think it's important to hear what they say when asked specific questions.<br />
<br />
But the practical choice is clear. Hekia Parata will be in parliament anyway, and Kris Faafoi is higher on the list than Steve Chadwick and Kate Sutton. Voting for Hekia Parata also makes it more likely that abortion law reform advocates will get in.<br />
<br />
<i>Palmerston North</i> <i>Ōtaki</i> & <i>Christchurch East</i><br />
<br />
So how far do you take this approach? In Palmerston North, two people whose position on abortion is unkinown are running, in Otaki the National candidate is Nathan Guy, an arch-reactionary (who will get in anyway) and in Christchurch East the Labour candidate is Lianne Dalziel who is a known supporter of abortion law reform.<br />
<br />
I think it's counter-productive to vote against supporters of abortion law reform to try and get better supporters of abortion law reform in. There are too many variables, and I think MPs are such cowards on abortion those who are prepared to say their position should be rewarded in a pavlovian kind of way. I also wouldn't vote for Nathan Guy myself - partly because it's not necessarily - there's no way Labour is picking up that seat. But I would probably avoid voting for the Labour candidate. And I would seriously think about voting for the Nat in Palmerston North.<br />
<br />
<i>Te Tai Tonga</i><br />
The same argument about Labour applies when it comes to Te Tai Tonga as Rino <span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: inherit;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="background-color: white; line-height: 19px;">Tirikatene is higher up the list than Steve Chadwick and Kate Sutton</span></span>. However, there the effect is more complicated because Rahui Katene won't get in on the list anyway. I don't know about Rahui Katene. Without knowledge that she supports abortion law reform I think it's risky to vote for her on the basis that she might bring in advocates on the labour list.<br />
<br />
<i>Tamaki Makaura</i><br />
Here the key piece of information is Pita Sharples position on abortion - which I don't think we can judge on his very limited voting record. Pita Sharples won't get in unless he wins Tamaki Makaura (whereas Shane Jones is in no matter what), so if enough information could be found about his position it would be a relatively simple decision.<br />
<br />
<br />
There are many other arguments you could make. For example, there is probably a case for voting Paul Foster-Bell in Wellington Central, since he is not guaranteed a place and a support of abortion law reform in National's caucus would be useful. However, given that Grant Robertson is demonstrably better on the issue than Foster-Bell, and Foster-Bell isn't really borderline because National are polling at a gajillion, and Wellington Central isn't actually marginal - I don't think the argument is very convincing. But I think talking and thinking about electorate seats in this way is useful. I'd be really interested in hearing where people's analysis, judgement and information differs from mine.<br />
<br />
Of course the line is somewhat subjective. Could I get up in the morning and look myself in the mirror knowing I'd voted for a Nat - even for the best reasons? I'm not sure, but I do know that I'd vote for Paul Goldsmith if I lived in Epsom. And abortion law reform is more important to me than keeping ACT out of parliament.<br />
<br />
<br />
<b>Updated:</b> I got Kelvin Davis's place on the list wrong so I've edited that. On top of that I've realized that on current polling (things have changed a bit since I started writing this post) more pro-choice women are in hazardous positions further down the list - on what Curia says today Carmel Sepoluni and Carol Beaumont are only just in if no marginals change hand. The bottom line is that in the labour party the people who most vocally support abortion law reform tend to be on the list rather than in winnable seats. Therefore, supporting Labour electorate candidates does not necessarily support the abortion law reform voices within the party.Maiahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17212711843307060731noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17759756.post-49742753714857227212011-11-21T12:00:00.000+13:002011-11-21T12:40:32.367+13:00An idiosyncratic guide to voting pro-choice this election: Part 1 party vote<br />
<div class="MsoNormal">
Voting for abortion law reform* is notoriously hard in New Zealand. In 1978, after parliament passed our current laws – Eric Geireinger wrote an entire book on how to vote for abortion law reform (and the effort generally failed). In desperation some women suggested ‘Vote prohibition for repeal’ – so there’s this very weird increase in the vote about whether alcohol should be banned in 1978.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
It is impossible to vote on a principled basis on abortion – because no party has solid policy on the issue. The Greens do have some sort of policy, but it does not promise abortion law reform, and other parties just say ‘it’s a conscience vote’. On top of this most politicians’ strongest view about abortion is “DON’T MAKE ME TALK ABOUT IT”. So finding out what various candidates’ views are is a combination of taking opportunities to ask questions, gossip, and instinct.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
More than that - voting won’t get us abortion law reform. That will only come about if we educate, agitate, and organise - force MPs’ hands. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
However, I think it’s worth talking about the different parties and some electorate races. Mostly because it allows for complicated nerdy calculations (I have made spreadsheets to assist me with this post). There are other places with great information ALRANZ have a <a href="http://www.blogger.com/%3Co:p%3E%3C/o:p%3Ehttp://alranz.wordpress.com/2011/11/15/voting-for-reproductive-justice/">blog post</a> discussing the campaign, they also have <a href="http://www.alranz.org/laws/politicsofabortion/politicalpartiesin.html">party guide</a> and a <a href="http://www.alranz.org/laws/politicsofabortion/votingrecordsofmps.html">record of how MPs have voted</a>. Although the voting records need to be read with a careful eye of the history of the votes. Tertiary Women's Focus Group include abortion in their <a href="http://www.demandabetterfuture.org.nz/girls-guide-to-voting">voting guide</a>. There's also <a href="http://valueyourvote.org.nz/">Family First's guide</a> which I find amusing.<br />
<br />
The second part of this post will be about electorate seats and is considerably more idiosyncratic than this first part, which just runs down the parties. I’ll mostly be talking about MPs who stand out from what is usual in their parties, known supporters of abortion law reform in right wing parties and known opponents in left wing parties (while people’s position on abortion doesn’t shake down along party lines exactly – what is normal within a party does). But I will also be talking about advocates – mostly on our side who we have reason to believe will actively advocate for abortion law reform. But I’ll also talk about the leaders of the reactionaries as well. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<a href="http://valueyourvote.org.nz/%3EFamily%20First's%3C/a%3E%20material%20-%20which%20I%20find%20very%20amusing.%3C/p%3E%3C/div%3E%3Cdiv%20class=" msonormal"=""><br /></a></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
I have also focused on the candidates on the cusp of being elected. Paul Hutchinson from National is the only member of National's caucus to vote against Judith Collins bill for parental notification but he’s number 26 on National’s list and has a seat so he’s going to get elected whatever happens. Likewise we can’t do much about Clayton Cosgrove, who is anti-abortion, and at number 8 on Labour’s list.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<a href="http://valueyourvote.org.nz/%3EFamily%20First's%3C/a%3E%20material%20-%20which%20I%20find%20very%20amusing.%3C/p%3E%3C/div%3E%3Cdiv%20class=" msonormal"=""><br /></a></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Note: All calculations in this post are based on the assumption that no seats change party and the figures are based on the Curia poll of polls. These are unlikely to pan out exactly. So it’s probably wise not to be too tactical with your vote<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<a href="http://valueyourvote.org.nz/%3EFamily%20First's%3C/a%3E%20material%20-%20which%20I%20find%20very%20amusing.%3C/p%3E%3C/div%3E%3Cdiv%20class=" msonormal"=""><br /></a></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<i>Labour</i><o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
The predominant view in Labour is that abortion law reform in theory (practice is another matter), but that doesn’t mean that we can safely assume any individual Labour MP or candidate supports abortion law reform. There are definite anti-abortion voices in the party, and unless they’ve been in parliament long enough to have their position on record – or are as vocal as Lesley Soper down in Invercargill – we won’t know who they are.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<a href="http://valueyourvote.org.nz/%3EFamily%20First's%3C/a%3E%20material%20-%20which%20I%20find%20very%20amusing.%3C/p%3E%3C/div%3E%3Cdiv%20class=" msonormal"=""><br /></a></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
However, Steve Chadwick is the strongest advocate for abortion law reform currently in parliament. She is number 34 on the Labour party list, and Kate Sutton, who should be pretty strong on this issue, is number 35. On current polling neither of them will get in – but it is close.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<a href="http://valueyourvote.org.nz/%3EFamily%20First's%3C/a%3E%20material%20-%20which%20I%20find%20very%20amusing.%3C/p%3E%3C/div%3E%3Cdiv%20class=" msonormal"=""><br /></a></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
If Labour rises a little in the polls (or stops sinking) a vote for Labour could be bringing in Steve Chadwick and Kate Sutton. If the polls continue to sink then it’ll be about bringing in Rick Barker, Deborah Mahuta-Coyle, Stuart Nash, Michael Wood, or Phil Twyford. Rick Barker spoke reasonably well to oppose Judith Collins parental notification bill, so can probably be relied upon; the others appear to have avoided making any public record of their position on abortion (although I think <a href="http://blog1.labour.org.nz/2010/03/22/a-defining-moment/">this post</a> demonstrates the priority Phil Twyford gives to abortion).<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
A record of anti-abortion labour MPs and candidates would be useful, but unfortunately the DON’T TALK ABOUT IT desire is strong, and the recent voting record is not necessarily a reliable indicator. Damien O’Connor and Clayton Cosgrove are the two labour MPs that I know are anti-abortion – if people know of others share them in the comments.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
The other, equally important and far less accessible information, is who was it who refused to let Steve Chadwick’s bill go forward.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<i>Greens</i><o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
The Greens have policy on abortion – but not policy for abortion law reform. And that’s not an accident – people are holding that policy up because they are anti-abortion. I don’t know who that is – I’m not inside the Greens, but I think it’s important to understand that there must be some anti-abortion advocates in there somewhere for the policy not to have got further.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Both Holly Walker and Jan Logie appeared interested in being advocates for abortion law reform at Ladies in the House. And while you can’t necessarily expect MPs to act based on what they said as candidates to the most sympathetic audience in the country, it’s better than most candidates (another advocate at Ladies in the House was Jordan Carter who is number 40 on the Labour list and unlikely to get in on election night, but may well come in mid-term). Jan Logie is 9 on the list and currently looking pretty certain, while Holly Walker is 12 and in on current polling – but the Greens have a history of shedding several seats between polling and election day.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
The views of other Green candidates on the cusp would be pretty useful to know, but I don’t know them. I’ve no idea about Steffan Browning, Denise Roche, Julie Genter and Mojo Mathers. James Shaw who is number 15 supports abortion law reform – my aim is to ensure that at least the Wellington Central candidates don’t get to hide their views.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<i>Mana</i><o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
I actually think Mana is the best bet for ensuring no-one in caucus in opposes abortion law reform. But that’s mostly based on instinct (and the fact they won’t get many MPs – I certainly wouldn’t begin to guess the position of anyone past Sue Bradford). However, there is no-one who stands out as an abortion law reform advocate in Mana. Mana don’t have policy at the moment, but have said that it will be set by Mana Wahine (and I’d expect that group to come up with good policy). Getting that position out of Mana took <a href="http://storytellerproductions.net/2011/08/11/te-mana-and-women/">quite a lot of work</a>. </div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
I do think it’s to Hone’s credit that he answered <a href="http://valueyourvote.org.nz/candidates/hone-harawira">Family First’s</a> survey and indicated where he stood on abortion. I find the arrogance of people who want to be representatives, but refuse to say where they stand on issues repulsive and offensive.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<i>Maori Party</i><o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
The Maori party have taken consistently reactionary positions about abortion. While I’ve no idea of the position of Waihoroi Shortland or Kaapua Smith (the first two people on the Maori party list) without any indication otherwise it’s probably safest to assume they will not support abortion law reform (and anyway the Maori party are very unlikely to get any list MPs so there’s not much point giving them your list vote – even if you support their actions over the last three years).<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<i>National</i><o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
National are actually going to get very few list MPs, because they win the vast majority of the electorate seats. However, any known abortion law reform voices within National would be valuable. Two that I know of are Paul Foster-Bell, who is 56 on the National list and Jackie Blue, who is 46 – and because of the way the electorate seats shake down there’s only 2 actual list places between them. At current polling they are both in, and Claudette Hauiti, Joanne Hayes, Leonie Hapeta, are on the border line. Their opinions are unknown, but people going to electorate meetings in Mangere, Dunedin South, Palmerston North and Wigram could usefully ask.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
If polling does slip then voting National will be more likely to bring in Paul Foster-Bell and Jackie Blue. But then if it slips a bit further (or National does very well in marginals) then Tau Henare number 40 on the list and 57<sup>th</sup> in if no electorate seats change hands, is probably in trouble. This would be a very good thing, because he is an extreme reactionary. However, there are many hazards in the National party when it comes to Abortion Law Reform, starting at number 2.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Fun fact, in 2002, before he was even an MP I wrote to John Key the candidate and asked him where he stood on abortion. He replied with one of the clearest statements that abortion law should be based the right of the pregnant person to control their body that I received from anyone (I didn’t receive many responses). Make of that what you will.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<i>ACT</i><o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
To the surprise of no-one ACT’s supposed liberalism is optional when it comes to women. John Banks is an absolute reactionary. The only person he is likely to bring in is Don Brash – who doesn’t seem to know what he thinks about abortion (see <a href="http://valueyourvote.org.nz/parties/act">the family first site</a> I will give ACT candidates some credit for sharing their opinions).<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
New Zealand First, Conservative Party and United Future must all be considered anti-abortion parties based on their history and their leaders’ positions.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Abortion isn’t the only consideration about how I’m going to party vote – and I’m pretty intense about the issue – so I don’t think it’ll be the only consideration of many readers. But I think information about who is on the cut off, and their position on abortion can be useful for people who are choosing between parties (which again I’m not).<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
If you’re choosing between Labour and the Greens, for example, figuring out which vote is more likely to bring in advocates based on polling would be useful. On the other hand if you’re choosing between National and ACT, figuring out whether you’re bringing in unknowns, vague supporters of abortion law reform or arch reactionaries by voting National is probably relevant – voting for ACT almost certainly brings in someone who doesn’t know what he thinks about abortion (if it brings in anyone).<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
There are big gaps in this post – a lot of people on the cusp whose views on abortion are a big black hole. So if you’re at an electorate meeting, or someone wants to shake your hand or kiss your baby, then ask them where they stand and share it in the comments.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
But to return to a theme – the sorry state of the information really does demonstrate that it won’t be by voting that we’ll bring about abortion law reform. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 18px; margin-bottom: 10pt;">
<br /></div>
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: 12pt;">* I have deliberately avoided using the term ‘pro-choice’ in this post. I believe to support the right of women (and all pregnant people) to choose, you must also support the right to have children. </span>Maiahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17212711843307060731noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17759756.post-83996062798687676712011-11-20T15:52:00.002+13:002011-11-20T15:57:53.576+13:00In solidarity with Russel Norman's EA*Russel Norman's decision to stand down his EA because of the actions of her partner is a feminist issue. I'm going to leave alone why the Greens thought it appropriate to condemn putting stickers on National party billboards (although it doesn't look good for principled left-wing green voters).** But why is his EA even part of the discussion?<br /><br />Russel Norman decided to go public with the fact that his EA was in a relationship with Jolyon White. He then decided to use the power he has because she works for him to stand her down (I know that he is not her direct employer but Parliamentary Services are pretty responsive to MPs wishes).<br /><br />From an employment perspective this is creepy enough - she is being stood down because she didn't tell her boss something her partner said months ago and instead made it clear to her partner that she didn't want anything to do with his actions. This is a pretty horrific view of employment and the right bosses have over their employees lives. A view Russel Norman endorsed.<br /><br />But there is an important gendered to this. Russel Norman's action reinforces a world-view that defines women in relationships with men through their partners' beliefs and actions and therefore denies their autonomy and even existence. People have condemned Julie's writing on the hand mirror and tried to silence her, because of who her partner is. This discriminatory way of treating of women in relationships with men is systemic. Men are not treated this way, and are not defined by the actions of their partners. Russel Norman has endorsed this double standard by the way he has treated his EA.<br /><br />Although this is far from the only <a href="http://capitalismbad.blogspot.com/2007/03/expecting-more.html">feminist reason</a> not to vote for any party which has Russell Norman at number 2 on its list. This was, after all, his assessment of Clint Rickards:<br /><blockquote>I don’t see that being involved in consenting group sex is any reason for him not to go back to work. And people use sex aids so using a police baton in a consenting situation doesn’t seem grounds for refusing him his job back.</blockquote><br /><br />Something to think about in the polling booth.<br /><br />* Obviously this construction of her identity is problematic. However, I decided since I didn't think her identity should be public in this way I didn't feel comfortable putting yet another hit into google about who she was.<br />** I find the idea that political parties should be able to put up their truly inane hoardings in publicly owned space, but it is morally wrong to talk back to those hoardings, no matter what you are saying, a really depressing view of political dialogue.Maiahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17212711843307060731noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17759756.post-25270299765542598782011-11-07T15:56:00.003+13:002011-11-07T15:56:44.509+13:00Comment updateI know comments are mostly dead here, but I thought I should let people know that I'm experimenting with Disqus. If I like it I'll export previous comments over to this forum, otherwise I'll go back to blogger. But until I've decided I'm not going to export all the old comments so they'll be hidden for a week or so.Maiahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17212711843307060731noreply@blogger.com0