Te Wiki O Te Reo Maori

Maori language week was a while back now. While it was on I wanted to write a post about it. But I struggled with writing anything, since I don't speak Maori and I was worried about tokenism. But I really liked hearing more Te Reo, and had learned stuff through other people's tokenism. I even thought about giving my blog a Maori name, but didn't.*

But I've just realised what I was wanting to say. There was an air of self-congratulation. TV3 had a piece in Maori about Air NZ using more Maori words in their flights, and they might as well had a sign flashing "aren't we awesome" down the bottom, instead of the subtitles.

If you imagine back forty years ago, what happened last Maori language week, would have seemed incredible. But it's not the companies, and media outlets who deserve the back slapping that they're giving themselves. They didn't do this randomly, out of the goodness of their heart, but because of the unbelievably hard work that activists had put into fighting for Te Reo.

It is the work of those activists that should be remembered and celebrated, not just one week a year, but all the time. And the way you remember and celebrate the work of activists, is to carry it on.**

*I couldn't find a word for 'capitalism' in any of the on-line Maori dictionaries. I considered substituting Raupatu, as the necessary precursor for capitalism. But my blog is named after a random Joss Whedon quote, it doesn't make any sense in English (except for the extremely geeky), translating it would be useless. Plus there was the tokenism thing.

** On a complete tangent, which isn't big enough to get a blog post of it's own, but was annoying enough to write about. I went to see the documentary about Tigi Ness in the film festival. It was interesting, and included the famous footage from Dominion Road at the third test in 1981 where everyone stands up and starts throwing stuff at the police. Anyway this younger guy who was talking "they stood up, they fought back so we didn't have to." Which I found immensely frustrating, and completely the wrong way of looking at the history of activism. They stood up, they fought back, and so we have to honour them by continuing the fight.

Victim Blaming

It appears New Zealand is having a victim blaming weekend. I was hoping to write something a little more complex as I got back into the swing of blogging - the limits of an analysis of prejudice maybe, or just more about Joss Whedon. But no

Stuff headlines the article about a double murder in Auckland with Crime of passion at Auckland apartment leaves two dead. The article includes the following quote:

Sources said a 30-year-old Iraqi man walked in on "something he shouldn't" yesterday morning which led to a 2½ hour standoff with police.

I'm not even linking to the article on the inside page, which is describing how Kristin Dunne-Powell behaved before and after having her back broken by Tony Veitch. Guess what? It's not relevant.

Then Ethical Martini (whose ethics appears not to be above a little victim blaming) asks the vital questions, such as was Tony Veitch being blackmailed (nope not linking to that either). Got to love the passive voice, it's easier to hide the fact that you're victim blaming when you don't mention the name.

All this is, of course, sending a message. The same message that the woman who was raped by the English rugby players received. If you are abused by a famous man, do everything you can to keep it quiet, otherwise your every move will be evaluated and dissected, and you will be blamed for the abuse.

Can I make this absolutely clear:

It is never women's fault or responsibility when men abuse them.

Never.

Ever.

Not even if she's drunk.

Nope.

Not even then.

Never.

Dr Horrible's Singalong blog - Act 3 SPOILERS

When I say there are spoilers, I mean it. Go and watch Dr Horrible before you read this post.

I'm still very unsure how to read Dr Horrible's Singalong blog, and the thread at Feministe reveals that there are many ways understanding Dr Horrible's story.

As an origin story I appreciate it; I'd even say it was well done. Not just that there was a lot of the funny clever stuff that I'd expect (the appearance of Bad Horse was pure genius), but showing villains as having origin stories as well as heroes is a cool way of undercutting many of the tropes of an origin story.

I can also appreciate a straight political reading of the story (which is encouraged within the storyas both Penny and Dr Horrible directly discuss how to create change). I don't really mind that the wet liberal who gets sucked in by those in power dies (although not necessarily realistic, as a metaphor it shows the likelihood of that strategy working). I also don't disagree that nihilist, individualists often put their ego before the change they are trying to create and do harm without doing any good. But I don't think any of that says anything particularly substantial, without an alternative (The Chain, Chosen, Graduation, Anne, Prophecy Girl, Jaynestown - Joss does know the alternative).

One of the big questions for me is the depiction of Penny, as the only substantial female character (and it didn't pass the Bechedel test). I actually dislike the 'Joss writes strong female characters' idea, because it is so often referring solely to the female characters who are capable of beating someone up. As someone who was always more interested in Willow than Buffy and Kaylee than River, I appreciate his ability to write interesting female characters, more than his tendency to write so-called 'strong' ones. The idea that the most important female characters to depict are those that can beat up the men who are trying to abuse them, comes perilously close to victim blaming. It's very satisfying to watch Buffy killing Angel at the end of Becoming II, but the death of the robot at the end of I Was Made to Love You, is just as true statement about relationships.

So I have no problem with Penny dying, because women do die when men fight over them (this is from the New Zealand news media today, it's being called a 'crime of passion'). I don't even really have a problem that she is so one dimensional, as we see her through Dr Horrible's eyes, and it is clear that she is just an object to him.

The one thing I did object to was the shot of her in the laundromat with frozen yoghurt, presumably waiting for Billy. The idea is that Billy could have got what he wanted if only he was prepared to treat Penny like a person. If he'd talked with her, rather than built a freeze ray, she would have returned his affections. I really dislike that aspect of these sorts of geek stories, because sometimes people don't love you back. As written it plays into Billy's entitlement over Penny.

I do think that Penny's death and Dr Horrible becoming actually evil was the only way the story could end, and I can see the importance of it as a story. To take us in through the eyes of a low-rent villain, and have us believe him that he's actually the hero, until he's not.

But ultimately, it's not a story that interests me that much. A death ray may be a substitute for a rocket-launcher, but this story didn't have any emotional resonance. The only person whose path was real enough to resonate was Dr Horrible. His loneliness in the last shot, and even the hollowness of getting have truth in them, but for me that is undercut because Dr Horrible's feelings for Penny didn't resonate, and must be, on some level, creepy.

Even more fundamentally, I come back to Grace Paley - because this story was lacking both blood and money. Now Joss has always been kind of shaky on the material reality of his stories (which was what made Firefly so strong), but he's always written about family - actual and created. Without blood there is not heart to his story.

My last post on Tony Veitch

I think I'm almost done on Tony Veitch, and the media response. Well I could probably write many more thousands of words about everything that has made me angry, but it's time to start writing about other things (I have a really good post in my head about the truckies, but I'll probably never write it).

But one aspect of this that I don't want to leave uncommented on, is the faux surprise (or maybe it's real surprise, that's even scarier) of the media that TV presenters are abusive in their relationship. The implicit racism, and pig-ignorance about abuse in these statements was made clear by the Sunday Star Times with its description: "the kind of violence you'd associate with Once Were Warriors."

To recap: Intimate abuse happens everywhere, in Porirua and Khadallah, in council flats, mansions and your local activist house; by all ethnicities: Pakeha, Maori, Samoan, Indian, Tongan, Chinese, American, Vietnamese, Somali; by the richest, and the poorest and everyone in between.

Which isn't to say that these other factors don't change the dynamics of intimate abuse - they do. Kristin Dunne-Powell's (who has my full solidarity and support) financial position made it much easier for her to leave and survive. Those looking at stopping intimate abuse need to look at all sorts of factors

But first those who don't think about intimate abuse from one TV commerical to the next, need to acknowledge that it's not limited to the scary other.


**********

And my very last comment (I hope) will be to quote something Tony Veitch said. Demonstrating that he can see the silver lining in breaking his girlfriend's back:

The one bright spot for me out of this, but the only thing that's kept me sane this week is that if everything hadn't happened I would not have learned lessons, I would not have gone to counselling. I would not have sat in front of a counsellor who was explaining ... it's almost like ... I remember coming home some days with revelations and I would learn stuff, and I would not have learned how to have a relationship and I would not have fallen in love and I wouldn't be married now. I would be alone.

Dr Horrible's Singalong Blog

I'm sure there are people out there who aren't aware that Joss Whedon has written an internet musical alled Dr Horrible's Singalong Blog. I guess it'd be inappropriate to describe these people as living under a rock, since they probably have very fulfilling lives. But I've been very excited about Dr Horrible's Singalong Blog since Joss first started talking about it during the writers strike.*

It was released at drhorrible.com on Tuesday, the second part came out today, and the denouement will be available on Saturday.

I'm enjoying it so far. The acting is superb - Nathan Fillion is particularly funny as Captain Hammer the cheesy uphimself hero nemesis of Dr Evil. The dialogue is very clever, and the songs are fun. The superhero as villain and villain as character we empathise with isn't particularly original, but it's well done. I particularly like that Captain Hammer is a corporate whore who is in with the mayor.

But Joss can do better. Penny, Felicia Day's character, is shown entirely through Dr Horrible's eyes. While we're supposed to sympathise him, he is pretty much a textbook nice guy. And it has yet to pass the Bechdel test (in fact there has only been one woman on screen so far). So far the characters don't resonate in any but the most superficial way, because they have no depth. And we all know that the importance of resonance, and rocket launchers.** I'm hoping that the lack of both of these will be compensated for by the last part.

In the meantime watch Dr Horrible's Singalong Blog, but also read Sugarshock, which is stronger short-silly-Joss.

* It was so dreamy when Joss Whedon my favourite writer who I've loved for a decade, became Joss Whedon a militant union activist.

** That's from Joss Whedon's audio commentary on innocence (since I'm not sure that this post can get any geekier I won't worry about revealing that I have an audio commentary pretty much memorised)

Redemption

As a feminist either you can believe that there is the possibility that violent men can change, or you move to lesbian-feminist commune. I am sometimes uncertain about which option is more unlikely to work. But I've never liked communes so I remain an optimist.

I was going to write a long post on redemption, how it was possible, and why it didn't look like Tony Veitch. But Vic Tamati was on nine-to-noon this morning and demonstrated that in a way I never could.

I disagree very strongly with stargazer - who talks about accountability in terms of a conviction. There are many men convicted of assaulting their partner, or children, who just keep doing it. In this case a conviction would almost certainly lead to a jail term. I may have only seen the corridors and visiting rooms, but jail won't make anyone less abusive. By rendering abusive men powerless it perpetuates the ideas of power and control that feed abuse. External forces, like the court system, are not what's going to create change(although they do at times at as catalysts). What Vic Tamati did, and Tony Veitch didn't do, was talk about what he did without excuses, learn about abusive relationships, and work to help other men who are being abusive.

update I've edited the post because I misrepresented Stargazer's views.

Dear 'The Standard'

You do not write about women very often. You have hardly a post about equal pay, reproduction or violence against women. When it was revealed that Tony Veitch, the only thing you had to say was "John Key sucks". However limited your analysis, you must acknowledge that Labour is not the cure to violence against women, and National is not the cause.

If don't have anything to say about violence against women, then that's ok. We each have a different focus, and no-one can write about everything. But if you have nothing to say, then stay silent. Please stop using women's actual lives and pain to score obscure points.

Tony Veitch

"I will talk to an employment expert about Tony Veitch's employment situation"
"So media expert, what implications does this have for TVNZ?"

Tony Veitch broke his ex-partner's back. The most important issues here aren't about employment or media, but abuse. Kristin Dunne-Powell, was always treated as tangential to the story, but quickly Tony Veitch's abuse also became invisible. The process stories analysing who would do what soon overtook anything substantive.

So I feel the need to talk about some basic facts about abusive relationships:

1. Abuse and violence within relationships tends to escalate.
   
2. Abuse isn't about losing control of yourself, but about gaining power and control over your partner.
3. After a relationship has broken up is the most dangerous time for women in abusive relationship.

The English Rugby Football Union

I've been sick, and there's been so much horrific stuff happening, that every time I've wanted to write I've felt outrage paralysis. So I'm going to go a couple of quick updates on the worst aspects (then I hope to get to a long post of outrage at the Maori party, and less outraged post about the possibilities of redemption, and how it doesn't look like Tony Veitch or Derek Fox).

My first object of outrage is the English Rugby Football Union:

It is up to women who have been raped to use the coping strategies that are best for them at the time. The decision to make a statement, or not make a statement, needs to be based on what she needs. To force women into a particular path is to revictimise her, by giving her no control over her reaction to being raped.

That an official representative of the English rugby team would see fit to comment on how a rape survivor deals with her assault shows that it's not just a team with four players that are rapists, but an institution that upholds rape culture.

No-one is saying this. Even the women's refuge spokesperson on Checkpoint, just talked about the fact that the English rugby players hadn't co-operated with the police when they were in the country, which equates the rapists and the women they raped.

Women? Not the winner on the day

I'm don't follow rugby; I'm not an All Black supporter. I understand that there are pressing issues facing those who are, such as the rotation policy (hell I'm impressed that I know what that means). But, right now, there is a more pressing issue. This is the statement that Graham Henry gave about the English Rugby team:*

I don't know what the details are, but I know there's a bit going on. You don't want any sporting team to be going through those situations. You live in that sort of life yourselves – in the international sporting environment. I think you've got a lot of sympathy for people who go through that situation. Certainly you just like to be supportive.

Who is he supporting? What is the situation?

There are two ways to parse his statement. Either he's saying that there's not possibility that the woman was raped, and being accused of rape is part of the international sporting environment. Or he's allowing for the possibility of rape, but he's supporting them anyway.

Neither of those options should be acceptable. That the coach of the All Blacks can say this, and no-one mentions anything except about the match tomorrow night, shows just how far we haven't come. As Anna McM says, rugby culture in our society has a large role in upholding rape culture. The question I have, particularly for those who play or watch rugby, is how do we change that?

Note for the comments: I will be moderating this thread hard. No rape myths, no misogyny, nothing about the woman involved.

*For those who don't know the police adult sexual assault team want to question four England players.

Irony much?

From Winston Peters:

"If you want commitment and drive and ambition to work in a greater collegial or community sense, then you must place your faith in the women of this part of the world, rather than the men who ... spend most of their time parading around like peacocks and do no work when it matters."

Mr Peters said it was not his intention to lecture Pacific Island countries, but New Zealand was entitled to ask "some pretty simple questions like how come all these useless males are running the show".

Electoral Politics Friday: Why Chris Trotter and the Standard are full of shit

I do have a lot to say about the recent High Court decision on abortion. But I lost my voice (not metaphorically I've had a cold), and I'm trying to recover. So you'll have to wait for my own thoughts. What I have to respond to straight away is the attempt, by smug labour-party men to use this as political point scoring.

Chris Trotter wrote:

So, all of you young, confident women of the 21st century urgently need to pause and reflect upon what is happening – especially all you young, confident women thinking of voting for the National Party.

The Standard quoted this approvingly and added:

A National government would change the direction of this country, away from social reforms to greater conservatism and even regression on social issues. National opposed civil unions, prostitution reform, paid paternal leave, s59, and every other social reform.

Notice the sleight of hand, the ease at which they move away from talking about a women's right to decide whether to go through pregnancy. In order to pretend that the labour government has supported women's right to an abortion, they have to avoid talking about abortion. Because the last substantial changes to our abortion law were passed in 1978, under Muldoon. The reason that Justice Miller can say that there is reason to doubt the lawfulness of many abortions, is that our abortion law was designed to make most abortions illegal. The people who wrote our abortion law, were the sort of people who argue that rape shouldn't be a criteria for abortion, because then women will claim to have been raped in order to get an abortion.

Helen Clark and Phil Goff spoke out about how bad the law we have now is back when it passed, but they haven't done anything about it, since they had the power to.* Sue Bradford, Sue Kedgley, Keith Locke, Ruth Dyson, Margaret Wilson, Marianne Hobbes, Maryann Street - they were prepared to fight this battle in the 1970s, before they got into parliament, they were feminists (or feminist supporters) then. And it's not just those who are in parliament now the numbers have been there for at least the last nine years, others had their chance: Jonathan Hunt, Matt Robeson, Laila Harre, and especially Phillida Bunkle.

Any one of those MPs could have written a private members bill that ended this. 18,000 women every year have the stress of jumping through certifying consultant hoops to get an abortion. First trimester abortions become second trimester abortions, because no-one gives a damn about those women. And now things may get worse, the Abortion Supervisory Committee may tighten the screws on certifying consultants, the hoops may get higher and the. None of this would have happened if any of the MPs who believe that women have a right to choose whether or not to end their pregnancy had acted on their beliefs.

Despite this Chris Trotter and The Standard are still trying to use abortion law as a reason to vote Labour. If we're not good, if we don't do what they want, things will get worse. But if Chris Trotter or The Standard really cared about women's control of their bodies, they would have said something before now. They would have spoken up for the hundreds of women each week who go through the certifying consultant process. They weren't prepared to fight for something better than the bad system that we've got now. Chris Trotter doesn't even care about abortion enough to get his fact rights, arguing that 1978 was the year women won the right to safe legal abortion in New Zealand - in 1978 there were 100 women a week who had to fly to Australia to get safe legal abortions.

* Twenty years ago, when she was Minsiter of Health, Helen Clark proposed a bill that would allow all doctors to be certifying consultants. She gave up pretty quickly and hasn't tried anything since.

Her words...

One of the women that Brad Shipton raped was interviewed on Nine to Noon yesterday about the parole board report.

It's an incredible interview, well worth listening to. She reminded me of the worst sentence of the parole board report, which I didn't write about yesterday:

He is said to be low risk of sexual offending and if he were to sexually reoffend, it is likely that this would involve a sexual assault on an adult woman in the context of a brief sexual liaison.

I can't make that statement make any sense, and yet it's still unbelievably offensive and ignorant.

The legal process has taken a huge toll on this woman, but what is most clear from the interview is the wisdom that she has from experience, and the strength of her analysis of rape.

Brad Shipton is a rapist

I find it hard to write about the parole report on Brad Shipton, or the media's coverage over the last few days.

"Should Brad Shipton be in jail?" "Do I want Brad Shipton to be in jail?" "Am I glad that he's going to remain in jail?" I can't answer those questions, haven't been able to months now. I keep on meaning to explore my ambivalance here, but I don't.

On top of that, I'm deeply suspicious of Brad Shipton's attitude towards the parole board. The way he treated women shows him to be a deeply manipulative person, who cares nothing about anyone else's feelings and will stop at nothing to get what he wants. Bob Schollum was denied bail, at least in part, because the parole board decided that a rapist who claimed that rape was consensual, was a danger to rape again. To see Brad Shipton's contrition in front of the parole board as anything other than a cynical ploy to try and get released, requires far more faith in Brad Shipton's integrity than is warranted on the evidence.

But I still want to talk about the parole board decision (which is available in full here and worth reading, because the Sunday Star Times article on it bore almost no relationship to the report), because it reveals quite a bit about judicial thinking about rape.

Some of it is really good. The most quoted part of the report says:

He said he was sorry for what the victim went through and later went further and said that he had ruined her life. He acknowledged he should not have put her in that position and he should not have taken his colleague Mr Schollum along with him. He acknowledged that she was possibly intimidated by them. He confirmed that he did not ask the complainant if it was okay to have sex with her or for more than one person to have sex with her, and that wearing the police uniform was despicable. He said looking back on his whole life, which he has reflected on since being in prison, has been full of disgraceful, disgusting behaviour.

In the Board’s unanimous opinion, what he described of the event was, in our view, one of rape.

I think they have laid this out very clearly; that even in his own version of events, it is clear that not only did she not consent, but that there were so many factors that made it impossible for her to give meaningful consent anyway.

While I was impressed with the parole board's analysis, I think the analysis of the psychologist was deeply problematic:

Suffice to say that that report outlines the details of the offence and Mr Shipton’s infidelities and involvement in group sex. At the time of writing the report, the psychologist was told by Mr Shipton that he denied the offence and that he had not accepted the jury decision. He thought his behaviour was immoral and unacceptable but not illegal. He told the psychologist that he had a bad jury and biased Judge and that he was very bitter and angry following the Court decision. He was able to identify risks in the future such as a situation of indulging in promiscuous behaviour and not being faithful to his partner would be risky for him.

To me, what is so worrying about this, is that the psychologist appears to have accepted Brad Shipton's rationalisation that the problem was infidelity and group sex, and not lack of consent. But Brad Shipton clearly can't identify consent, so he's as much risk to a partner, as he is if he's having sex with other people. In fact, when asked in the dock, how he knew that the woman he raped consented he replied "the same way you know with your wife." That a psychologist report doesn't just not challenge, but goes along with, a moral view that condemns group sex and unfaithfulness, rather than centreing on consent, shows the very limited understanding our justice system has about rape.*

The report also indicates that Brad Shipton wasn't eligible for intervention programmes. I don't see prison as a way of eliminating rape, but it is clear that they're not even trying.

*Lets all curl up and die of not surprisedness

Abolishing prisons would also solve the problem of drugs in prison

From NZ Herald

Corrections Association president Mr Hanlon said the `P' could have been thrown over the prison wall, though it was more likely to have been smuggled in by a person.

"One way to help prevent it being smuggled in is to stop contact visits," he told The Sunday News.

"It sounds extreme but no contact, no pass-on contraband."

When I read this, I am back in the visiting rooms of Rimutaka, Arohata, A-CRAP and Auckland Region Women's Corrections facility. I could describe each of them to you now, and the pluses and minuses of the different visiting systems.* But most vividly I remember the contact. The joy in that first hug, and how much I tried to load into the last, the need to touch frequently in between to prove that we both existed.

I can't even begin to imagine what non-contact visits take away from prisoners. I don't think I can imagine what it would have taken from me.

This is not unionism. It's not any union's business to tell the boss how to do their job better - particularly this job. I'll support CANZ's claims for more pay and better staffing ratios. But the more they make the job of their union to make life worse for prisoners, the further they get from unionism that I can recognise, and the closer they get to the police association.

* Taking the best from each of them would be Rimutaka's processing of visitor approvals forms, the Wellington region's booking system, Auckland Women Region Corrections Facility's visiting hours, A-CRAP's visiting area (it had tables, and the guards didn't come around and give you stupid petty orders all the time), and Rimutaka's visiting room location (you could see Pukeko out the window sometimes). It's hard to figure out which guards were least likely to steal into visiting time with their own lateness and disorganisation (twice a visit started twenty minutes late, and you can be damned sure it still ended on time). I think it might have been Arohata. But it'd be by a slim margin.

I hate prisons so much.

Talking of people killed by capitalism...

Folole Muliaga's daughter gave evidence at the inquest of her mother last week (see here although the link will break soon). The daughter talked of the way she was treated by hospital staff, who discharged Folole Muliaga because her bed was needed, and didn't tell the family how to care for her.

We were told that we should eat lots of vegetables. I found this lecture difficult to take because we were made to feel like failures and to blame. While I found these lectures very upsetting I was very polite and nodded my head.

The nurse who gave these lectures didn't ask what the Muliaga family ate, before telling them what was wrong with their diet.

The idea that we can all control our own health, if we have the right 'lifestyle' runs strong in our society. The underpinnings of this idea can be challenged in so many ways. But I think we need to reject the underlying ideology and see that the blame that Folole Muliaga's daughter felt isn't incidental to this idea, but it's raison d'etre. We're supposed to be distracted from all the other reasons why poor pacific island immigrants die in South Auckland, and blame the woman herself.

Foloe Muliaga's death is a tragedy for so many reasons, but the hospital system's culpability shouldn't be ignored, just because of the horrific role played by the power company.

Note about comments Comments are also closed on this thread, until the right wing idiots go back to where they came from.

Tiny, tiny babies

I want to be really clear that I was relieved when I heard that Chris Kahui was found not guilty.* I've no idea who killed the Kahui twins,** it may have been Chris. But iff someone had gone to jail for their murder that wouldn't have made that person any less likely to be violent towards children in the future, and it won't stop another caregiver of a small child doing violence under stress. It might have served as punishment, but whoever killed two babies of their own family is punishing themselves already. All that's left is vengeance, and no-one has a right to claim vengeance in those babies names.

I do have a point I want to make, now that I've made it clear that I am not calling for a different verdict. From the very beginning, the defence painted Macsyna King as guilty, and they emphasised again and again what a bad mother she was. They talked of her going out with her sister, leaving Chris Kahui alone with the twins. This is from the summing up:

The twins were not victims of a one-off assault but had historic injuries, and it was "suspicious" their mother was not aware of these.

The Crown had accused Kahui's defence of blackening Ms King's reputation, but Mrs Smith said Ms King, through abandoning her other children and her drug use, had done that all by herself.

I don't think this defence would have been used or useful if the genders had been reversed. If hypothetical-Macsyna had been standing trial for their murder, then she would have not been able to use the fact that hypothetical-Chris had gone out partying all night, abandoned previous chidren and not noticed previous injuries to portray him as guilty. What is almost unforgivable in a mother, is almost acceptable in a father.

Note on Comments: I got linked to by a couple of obnoxious right-wing blogs so I've turned off the comments on this post.

* I want to remind people that Chris Kahui spent several months in jail, while he was unable to get bail. During this time he was in physical danger, and so was kept in segregation, which would have meant 23 hour lock-down. The prominence, and swiftness, of the 'not guilty' verdict, doesn't seem to have led to a discussion about how he has already been punished.

** That is, which person inflicted the injuries. Because capitalism and colonialism played a large part in those babies deaths.

Police conduct

As everyone knows, at this stage, the news police code of conduct doesn't mention abusing your power to rape women. Despite the direct line of causation between police officers using their power to rape women and their being a police code of conduct in the first place.

They didn't have to stop police officers raping women; they didn't even have to care that police officers were raping women; they just had to look like they cared about police officers raping women. And they failed.

But wait, they have an explanation:

A spokesman for police headquarters said: "Although the code does not specifically refer to inappropriate sexual behaviour, the code does cover such activity."

It contained a clear reference to "respect for people and property".

People AND Property, I'm guessing they included both, because there are a fair number of police officers who aren't sure whether young women are property or people.

To become skinny find a woman to cook for you

This is an image from the Icarus Project, a radical mental health support network. I saw it when it was reprinted in a local zine (more on that later): You can find a larger version here. [Image description: It's a poster headed taking care of the basics. It is divided into 5 parts: eating, sleep and rest, exercise, schedule and herbs, meds etc. Each has a cartoon drawing, half with people who are doing things in a way that is portrayed as unhelpful, the other half with people who are doing things in a way that is portrayed as helpful.]

I wish I was disappointed; I wish I expected more of so-called radical organisations. But no, when trying to illustrate unhelpful eating patterns for depression they show a fat person eating a burger and fries, and they contrast this with a thin people eating a home cooked meal served by a woman (the headline is my alternative title for the Eating Well illustration).

The illustration is not radical. Fat-hatred is not radical. Food-hatred is not radical. People can pretend that their disgust at a burger and fries* comes from their dislike of multi-national corporations. But their disgust at a fat body is in plain view.

* Which as far as meals when you're depressed go seems pretty good to me. It has protein, carbohydrates and fat. It will fuel your body.

Vietnam

Tribute08 is 'A Vietnam Commemoration honouring veterans' and their families' contribution to New Zealand'. It is being held over Labour weekend in Welling and it's symbol looks like that:A poppy and a Pohutakawa - two flowers that are not native to Vietnam.* But then neither were the New Zealand troops that went over and killed Vietnamese people.

I don't understand why I even have to write that.

Vietnam Veterans are in a shitty position. They were sent to kill and to be killed in a war the government couldn't sell. They come home, and their health has been damaged by Agent Orange (and the general war-like tendancies of war). I completely support the work of Vietnam veterans to hold the government to account for the health effects of Agent Orange. But that doesn't make what happened to them a 'contribution' that needs to be 'honoured'.

These sorts of weasel words cover up the horrific reality of war, that's what they're designed to do. Vague patriotism covers the important questions ("what the hell were we doing there?"). If those questions aren't asked then it's all the easier for the government to do it again and tis government sent troops to Afganistan and Iraq.

*I'm not a poppy expert. Maybe some poppies are native to Vietnam. If so I really don't think the RSA red paper poppy grows there naturally.