Written By:
notices and features - Date published:
5:30 pm, March 5th, 2024 - 171 comments
Categories: Daily review -
Tags:
The current rise of populism challenges the way we think about people’s relationship to the economy.We seem to be entering an era of populism, in which leadership in a democracy is based on preferences of the population which do not seem entirely rational nor serving their longer interests. ...
The server will be getting hardware changes this evening starting at 10pm NZDT.
The site will be off line for some hours.
The last National government admitted they could not afford their promises without an increase in GST.
This government just says it cannot afford …. …. …. …. …. …. ….. ….. ….. – meanwhile they are waiting for foreign governments to give them cash vouchers for commercial airline fares so they can afford going to international events on routes Air NZ does not fly (presumably already using government bulk-buying points on the routes Air New Zealand flies).
Good interview with Judith Hobson, the elderly women seriously assaulted at the Let Women Speak event in Auckland last year. Yesterday the man who punched her in the head three times got discharged without conviction and name suppression (which means you can't name him on TS).
Well done the Herald for this piece, one of the few NZ neutral pieces on the gender/sex wars.
https://www.nzherald.co.nz/kahu/nana-bashed-at-posie-parker-rally-outraged-over-sentence-of-her-young-attacker/IP644WFAENBM5CWUWSMJCZNVQA/
content warning, serious male violence against a woman.
I'm posting this for two reasons.
https://twitter.com/A1Retta/status/1764523316130598955
longer vid with context
https://twitter.com/A1Retta/status/1764818549724586004
"suffers from ADHD and autism"
Get stuck into him, weka!
Looks like you are an apologist for violence, in this case repeatly punching an elderly woman in the face in an unprovoked attack Robet. Good to know that Robert.
The only defence would have been if he had of been criminally insane at the time Robert. He wasn't
What are you on about? The only thing I said about him was that he violently assaulted an elderly woman and got discharged without conviction and name suppression.
Robert, that diagnosis doesn't come with a propensity for ungovernable violent urges.A gullible judge, or a scared judge(of the backlash )has had the wool pulled over his/her/their eyes.I have a close friend who also suffers from adhd and high functioning autism, a remarkable , intelligent person who struggles fitting in , but manages , and has never been violent. Nowhere have I seen that the young man has been ordered to seek help in managing his impulses.Whereas the elderly woman is stuck with sleep problems and fearfulness.I fully sympathise with her.Do you?
I have not seen that to date
I work with people on the IDCCR Act, including a young man with autism & ADHD who hit someone over the head with a skateboard because he was "provoked" (someone swore at him at a bus stop).
Oh God! They must all be a danger then! Lock em up! They shouldn't be on the streets
!
IDCCR Act.
https://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/2003/0116/latest/DLM224578.html
Judith shoved/poked someone, though, right?
Please provide a link Robert preferably from court documents.
Looks like they won't Weka if Robert is anything to go by.
But an Act MP has said it is a tragedy for women.
And Winston Peters made an indirect comment about it. Hint I infered from that he was on womens side
The only side Peters is on is his own. And his law and order, lock. 'em up approach isn't as useful to women as it might seem. Putting that young man in prison would almost certainly ruin his life and teach him how to be violent long term. Women don't benefit from putting men into a violence training school.
My full quote was,
Just so we are clear what I meant.
I explained it here,
https://thestandard.org.nz/daily-review-05-03-2024/#comment-1991691
Quoting your own words as evidence?
Novel, if nothing else.
In the video, Anker – Judith approached and poked/elbowed/shoved the person who removed the standards, yes/no?
Whats that got to do with the young man repeatedly punching Judith? Or are you saying Judith asked for it?
I honestly am shocked you can watch that assault on an elderly woman and not be outraged Robert. Seriously I am.
I'm not. Like I said, the liberal left have sanctioned that it's ok to punch women now if you don't like their politics. And apparently it's women's fault that trans people also get attacked. Twofer.
Really? That would some sort of evidence – poll result? Anything?
evidence for what?
Evidence for your claim:
'the liberal left have sanctioned that it's ok to punch women now"
Thanks, in anticipation.
My full quote was,
Just so we are clear what I meant.
I explained it here,
https://thestandard.org.nz/daily-review-05-03-2024/#comment-1991691
Who speaks for the left?
I'm not saying anyone is speaking for the left, so I don't really follow your question.
That reminds one of a joke, what happens when Socrates is teaching himself how to think?
So then, no one can dispute you claim about the left because no one speaks for the left.
I think you have the wrong end of the stick, so I will attempt to explain my thinking.
I gave an example above about Marama Davidson not condemning the assault. In her role as Minister for the Prevention of Family and Sexual Violence this seemed extraordinary. She could have condemned the assault and still spoken up for trans rights. That lack of condemnation is a passive sanctioning.
TRAs presented the protest as peaceful. It wasn’t. Again, in the discussions that day and afterwards I didn’t see the liberal, pro genderists condemning the violence. It’s a passive sanctioning.
It’s similar to the years on twitter when TRAs could post violent, often sexualised, imagery at feminists and other women, and the pro genderist left just let it happen. Even now when I post a link to https://terfisaslur.com/ I am nearly always met with resounding silence and then arguments about evil terfs. Passive sanctioning.
And tonight Robert had to be prompted to condemn the assault on Hobson, and then spend the rest of the evening talking about a woman being pushed rather than the violent assault on Hobson.
This is such a familiar pattern that I have seen over many years now. Others see it too. There is no longer any base line value that women shouldn’t be hit. There used to be.
"“I hope his parents are proud of him. This is an absolute joke, and he’s a disgrace,” Hobson told the Herald."
So, Hobson is publicly shaming his parents???
The person who "suffers from ADHD and autism" is a "disgrace"?
Hmmmmm….
Mental health isnt an excuse for violent assualt… thousands of people battle their demons every day without resorting to assualting elderly woman.
Agreed, but his parents??
this would be another example of a minimising argument. Instead of talking about the violent assault and the political implications, you want to focus on something the woman said in her anger at the discharge and name suppression.
We should ignore the details that don't suit?
Why not address the things said, in a reasonable manner, then move to the next matter?
Minimalising? You're burying.
go ahead, I'll follow
Maybe she has adhd and autism Robert .For gods sake , cut her some slack
Oh, that's a good point, Francesca – I hadn't considered that!
No the person who violently assaulted an elderly women is a disgrace.
I think the vast majority of Kiwis would agree with my statement
No one knows who his parents are because he has name suppression.
"The person who "suffers from ADHD and autism" is a "disgrace"?
Hmmmmm…."
Robert you are being disingenuous and I don't believe you don't know it. (But I could be wrong of course)
Suffering from ADHD and autism doesn't give a person an excuse for punching an elderly woman in the face. It's clear that he is described as "a disgrace" because of his violent act, not because of his neurodevelopmental disorders.
"Suffering from ADHD and autism doesn't give a person an excuse for punching an elderly woman in the face. "
I agree entirely. Mine was a faulty juxtaposition.
yes, there was some argy bargy, including a bit of pushing by Hobson. What's the relevance of that to the news in the last 24 hours?
Argy-bargy?
Judith appears to have left her viewing/listening spot, upon seeing the person who was removing the standards/tape, approached that person, who was in no way involving herself with Judith, then pushing/elbowing that standard-remover. True, or not? To me, that's significant. That's why I've mentioned it.
"A bit of pushing by Hobson" has, so far as I know, has never been mentioned here. A link would convince me otherwise.
Did you read the Herald piece Robert? There was a protest and the pushing you are referring to and the conflict over the fencing is pretty normal in the NZ context of protests.
An elderly women getting head punched repeatedly by an adrenalined up man and the left not being able to condemn it is out of the ordinary and new. It was a watershed moment. Still is apparently.
"There was a protest and the pushing you are referring to and the conflict over the fencing is pretty normal in the NZ context of protests."
The head punching is appalling, weka.
It didn't come out of nowhere though.
Other "listeners" didn't get punched.
"Pushing" is okay, ya reckon? Even when the person pushed/elbowed wasn't interacting with or being aggressive to anyone?
Curious…
Glad to hear you say it Robert, thanks.
what does that mean?
Why was Judith the subject of attack?
Naughty Judith must have asked for it Robert (sarc). What century are we living in here?
BTW not long before the attack the tras pushed through the barriers. There were no police (they were idlely standing on the periphery). From what I have heard from women at the event, when this happened they were terrified. An out of control malevolent mob with the back up of 2000 versus 200 or so mostly women, some girls, some elderly, one pregnant
Scaremongery 101 from Anker: pregnant! Terrified! Malevolent mob Werewolves!
I'm going to assume that you didn't watch the replay of the livestream. Because if you did and you don't believe that women there were terrified, that speaks very ill of you.
I know people that were there, including a man who was on the rotunda. He described it as terrifying.
I watched the livestream, I found it terrifying. I know other women likewise, including women who are highly critical of KJK and had been trying to get her to cancel her Australian events.
It was a mob. I have zero doubt that there were many people there intent on a peaceful protest and got caught up on how it played out. I also believe that there were people there with the intention for it to turn violent if needed. You can see that in the video.
Assume away, weka, that seems to be the accepted way with some around this issue.
I agree, the situation will have will have been terrifying to some/many. But we are discussing the one woman and her role/fate, aren't we?
There seems to be a scatter-gun/pile-on aspect to this discussion, nē rā?
It is not scare mongering Robert. The mob was malevolent. I have read many personal accounts written by the women from LWS. The pregnant women who was trapped on the band rotunda, surrounded by an angry mob who were assaulting women and who were trying to get at Kellie Jae who knew if she fell down she would have been seriously injured, if not killed. She got out in one piece because of the stewards, mostly women, who were kicked, pushed, tripped up, spat at and had liquid thrown over them.
You can try and ridicule me, but it only shows how out of touch you are with what happened that day. How dare you
Well because she was walking home on her own and had a short skirt on so that's why she was…………….opps sorry.
She was attacked because a violent young thug attacked her. Stop blaming the victim Robert
"opps (sic) sorry"?
Right there, you've revealed your powerful bias, anker. You should declare a conflict of interest and retire from the debate, anger (intentional typo).
what bias are you referring to Robert?
I have no idea what you are talking about Robert.
Thansks for your suggestion that I should retire from the debate (sarc). I kind of like to make my own decisions about whether I shut up or keep talking.
You tell me. You're the one that brought it up.
Okay. Judith voluntarily left her post, involved herself with the standard-remover, unnecessarily, imo, poked and elbowed, imo, and attracted the attention of the assailant. No one else did that.
I absolutely condemn physical assault, mild or damaging.
Do you?
I don't believe women are responsible for men punching them.
Judith though, was responsible for pushing/poking/elbowing the fence-remover, yes?
Why do you say the woman who was pushed by JH, was the person who opened up the fence barrier – that it is not on the videos above (they both begin afterwards)?
different fence. JH pushed a woman who was removing a white, tape line and picket. You can’t really see it in the video above. One of the casualities of No Debate. I couldn’t easily find a better video. I know they exist because I’ve watched them a fair bit. But they’re on twitter and youtube in accounts I don’t know well enough to just grab.
"JH pushed a woman who was removing a white, tape line and picket."
Yeah, that one.
Although she pushed that person after the action, as that person was walking back, job done.
"JH pushed a woman…"
Yes, though it looked to me like, push, elbow-poke, yes?
And, thank you, weka. I’ve watched them a fair bit also.
One of many watershed moments for me Weka. Many males on the left must have been talking bullshit back in the day when they claimed to be standing up for women's rights
the thing I learned was that for some lw men, their support for women's rights and/or feminism is dependent upon the men agreeing with the thing women are going on about. When they disagree, the support for women and feminism goes. Thus women's rights is still a subset of men's politics. And then they wonder why so many women fell in behind KJK.
Not all left trans ally men, and definitely not all left wing men, but it was an eyeopener.
You're not "curious", you are gaslighting. You're minimising what happened, and patronising women here who are telling you, we are disgusted, frightened, feckin over TQ+ activists, the behaviour of the cops and the judiciary on this issue and we are not going silently.
I'm not merely "curious", Billie, nor am I minimising. I abhor violence; no one should be hit, shoved, poked, prodded, imo.
One of many watershed moments for me Weka. Many males on the left must have been talking bullshit back in the day when they claimed to be standing up for women's rights
You are spinning out, Anker. Keep to the actual matter. Put your thoughts forward, have them tested.
Robert you are digging yourself in deeper and deeper
Anker – I'd be digging for days before I got to where you are lodged!
I am lodged in biological reality Robert. There are only two sexes and you can't change your sex.
Telling children they might have born in the wrong body and that if their sex "assigned" at birth may be wrong. Rather than being a boy, they might actually have a gender identity which means they are really a boy. And as a boy who is really a girl its o.k. for them to use the girls toilets change rooms, enter girls competitions. etc etc. I would suggest that anyone who is lodged here is operating under a delusion.
That's pretty spinny, anger, given what the topic is here.
and yet some of us know exactly what anker is talking about, understand the thoughts she is expressing, and see them as not only pertinent to this conversation but essential.
Back them up with sound argument then.
I have been. For years.
Not tonight, it would seem.
In the shorter video coverage it looked like she was trying to get a poster off him, that was discussed here last March.
I'd not seen the longer video footage, which showed a different context, till now.
She seems to have wanted to preserve the original intent – counter-protestors behind the barrier fence, to keep the rotunda surround for those there to listen to speakers (if that was lost, the speakers would be drowned out by noise).
She gave a female a push back towards the fence. Then he moved to punch her. Then after being knocked back she moved forward towards him (my guess still in a I’ve got to do something mode at that point. And then he punched her twice more.
"She seems to have wanted to preserve the original intent – counter-protestors behind the barrier fence…"
Self-appointed Sheriff. Pushing the counter-protester, who was in no way interested in her, hmmmmm….
Given the female was only pushed, she was not under any threat.
Back in 1981 the protesters had marshalls, their job was to prevent confrontation with the public going to and from the games.
In the absence of police doing it, that is of some public purpose.
If the effort to keep separation between the two groups failed, as it did, the event would not go ahead as planned.
There is a difference between counter-protest and shouting down a speaking event.
The female who was pushed did not react in any way, other than tolerantly.
Yes?
Of course she wanted to preserve the "original intent – counter protestors behind the barrier fence". The women knew they were hopelessly out numbered, the counter protesters were making a defeaning noise and they had signs like "suck my lady dick c…t).and many of them were men including a 6' 6" drag queen who towered over everyone….and then they barged through the barrier……. Very hard to fathom why the Let Women Speak crowd where desperate to maintain the physical barriers between themselves the counter protester.s
Putting the fence back would preserve the "original intent", shoving, elbowing another person though, would not.
Perhaps though, you feel physical action; shoving etc. is all good, anker?
I
Hmmm
A bit like the old lady who resisted the police and got tasered to death
She should never have done that eh Robert?
Never mind about the strength differential , we are all trans now
It's not a bit like your manufactured story, Francesca. Let's keep to the actuals here.
Well actually the old lady (demented ) was approaching the police with a knife.
The response was disproportionate, given the size and strength differential.Thats exactly what we’re talking about.
A young man , who had not been personally threatened, bashing an elderly woman, not once, not twice, but three times .You, and all of us commenting(I hope) have seen the injury.Any corresponding injury on the girl you mentioned who was shoved or the young man ?
Ah, so the fence-remover wasn't visibly injured?
All good then. Nothing to see there.
that's a good point. Mostly I see Robert running diversion arguments here. Why talking about how the elderly woman was damaged when we can talk about another woman being pushed a couple of times.
ffs, weka!
If I am wrong, then explain your thinking and position and argument. This is exactly what happens when people don't. We engage with what we see and comment on it.
I've explained my point repeatedly and as clearly as humanly possible, imo.
Perhaps you could explain it in a different way then Robert? It sounds to me and maybe others although I can't speak for them, as though you're somehow saying she asked for it? Or that she is somehow responsible for the assault upon her, in other words victim blaming.
The reason it seems this way is because you keep bringing up her pushing someone away from her or poking them or something as if it is somehow relevant to the assault upon her by the man in question?
If that isn't the point you are trying to make then can you make it easier for people to understand what the point is that you're making here?
Sometimes it’s better to say exactly what you want to say so there is no misunderstanding rather than try and lead people to a ‘lightbulb’ moment where they suddenly make your argument for you without you saying it or they ‘see’ what it is you are meaning IMO.
Okay, thanks Michael.
"Perhaps you could explain it in a different way then Robert? It sounds to me and maybe others although I can't speak for them, as though you're somehow saying she asked for it?"
No, I am not saying that, nor do I believe that. Judith seems to have not interacted with the assailant at all. She did though, interact with the fence-remover who was walking back from gathering up the temporary fence.
"Or that she is somehow responsible for the assault upon her, in other words victim blaming."
No, she is not responsible at all for the assault. She did though, "argy bargy" the fence-remover. I'm supposing this action attracted the attention of the assailant.
"The reason it seems this way is because you keep bringing up her pushing someone away from her or poking them or something as if it is somehow relevant to the assault upon her by the man in question?"
Yes, I do. I believe it is, unless there's something I've missed: I asked myself, after watching the video many times, why the assailant chose Judith.
"If that isn't the point you are trying to make then can you make it easier for people to understand what the point is that you're making here?"
I have tried to be clear. I ought probably to bulk out my comments with disclaimers and statements about what I'm not saying. From my point of view, some here are leaping to conclusions and signing negative meanings to my observations and questions.
"Sometimes it’s better to say exactly what you want to say so there is no misunderstanding rather than try and lead people to a ‘lightbulb’ moment where they suddenly make your argument for you without you saying it or they ‘see’ what it is you are meaning IMO."
I agree, sometimes it is. Some people feel I'm trying to "gotcha" them by getting them to agree with one thing or other. This lack of faith frustrates me a lot. I'm not blaming anyone for this 🙂 Sometimes though, pithy one-liners are good value.Here's one:
"Explaining is losing" 🙂
Robert Guyton @ 8:44am
At risk of a pounding from your detractors on this matter, I skimmed through this thread last night and had no trouble understanding what you were trying to say.
There was imo fault on both sides. Of course the elderly lady was not deserving of what happened and the person responsible has been judged accordingly and has to pay her some compensation.
However the lady was clearly bringing attention to herself by tackling the person who pulled down the fence. Her supporters can be as pedantry as they like but, in a nutshell, that is what happened. Of course she was not to know there was a person who has behavioural problems associated with a mental disorder in the vicinity.
Unfortunately the elderly lady chose not to believe the circumstances around what followed. Yesterday, after the judge disclosed his findings, she is reported to have yelled out to the defendant "he was a little bastard and telling lies."
No judge is going to make a finding of ADHD and Autism (quite severe by the sounds of it) without thoroughly checking its veracity. While understanding what the lady has been through (having also had very traumatic experiences) that was not a suitable response and could be construed by some as disputing and disrespecting the judges findings.
I also note the defendant quickly recognised his behaviour was wrong. He has done many hours of community service already and undertaken further treatment for his disorders. You can't ask for more than that.
All good then Anne!
Please link to the support for this. Please do this before you make any other comments.
Well put Anne and I also agree Robert didn't appear to be victim blaming to me.
@ weka.
https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/auckland-posie-parker-protest-man-granted-discharge-without-conviction-after-punching-71-year-old-woman/RSV75S5IEBCHNNGYEH7V77BE2Q/
I did not have time to go digging out links – especially when they appeared to be all over the media yesterday. In such circumstances most people are well able to link themselves.
However one apparent error on my part: I thought she had made the statement directly to the defendant but she might have made it to the media. Doesn't make any difference to the inappropriateness of the statement.
[the quote you used isn’t in the link you have now supplied. I couldn’t find your quote when I googled yesterday. If you want to paraphrase then don’t use ” “.
I think you mislead in a number of ways, but that one is really not ok. We have a ‘link when you quote’ rule for good reasons. I’m sick of having to waste my time chasing you up on this pattern of yours.
If you don’t have time to link, then don’t comment until you do. I’m over using my time on this. Next time I see you do something like this, I will either just dump the whole comment in Trash and/or I will give you a short ban. Bans will increase each time. – weka]
mod note
Thank you, Anne and Red Blooded One. It's tough when The Standard turns into The Stroppery 🙂
https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/auckland-posie-parker-protest-man-granted-discharge-without-conviction-after-punching-71-year-old-woman/RSV75S5IEBCHNNGYEH7V77BE2Q/
@SPC
"“You’re a lying little b******,” she said to him"
Such unprovoked violence. Where are the police and courts when you need them?
He must have been traumatised. Poor wee manlet.
Also from Anne's link:
"Hobson put out her hands to stop them and made contact with the opposing group.
The young man saw this and punched the 71-year-old three times in the head, believing she had assaulted a fellow counter-protester."
Views from commenters here about this are subjective opinions, imo.
weka: Anne wrote,
"he was a little bastard and telling lies."
and the link contained,
“You’re a lying little b******,” "
and while her use of quote marks isn't ideal, threatening Anne with a ban seems … harsh, don't you think, especially in light of her follow-up explanation.
@Molly
You would have thought a journalist might have asked her what she meant.
I replied pointing out I might have been in error about who the woman was speaking to. Is that not good enough for you? Here is the quote:
I took it – not unreasonably – to mean the lady in question was speaking directly to the defendant.
There was nothing in my comment that was unreasonable, My crime appears to be that I was "telling lies".
Edit: I see SPC has also linked to the quote.
[I’m no longer interested in trying to get you to comment within the rules. Ball is in your court. I encourage you to read this, because I’m past my limit of wasting my time on this https://thestandard.org.nz/moderation-notes-in-election-year/
– weka]
mod note.
The victim really ought to have "transitioned" before the trial. Only a declaration is needed. That way the woke overlords' system would have recognised her as a victim.
100% Billie
No wonder NZ has such terrible rates of family and sexual violence – there is always a man ready to excuse it based on something the victim did. You can remain unmolested as long as you stay in your place. Look at the repellent, pompous ass in this thread imagining he has something to impart about events, some rationale exists in his addled misogynist brain that means the perpetrator was only part of the reason punches landed on a woman’s face – a woman he doubtless knew wouldnt punch him back. Hopefully the next woman he hits has a haymaker like mine.
Billie, please dial back the abuse of another commenter please. Make the political points without the personal attack.
His gaslighting, his patronising, his "hmmmm", his calling the victim a "self appointed Sheriff" etc – is abusive.
that's not how it works here. You can name it as abuse if you want, but you may need to make an argument to support that. However another person being abusive doesn't mean you can be.
I'm asking you to dial back the abuse because otherwise there will be a flamewar, and the mods (of which I am one), will start banning people to prevent that getting out of control. Doesn't really matter what side they are on.
You have strong political arguments. Make them!
He likened being hit with being "prodded" – etc. That is extremely dangerous minimising and this mindset is why NZ is a world leader in abuse of women. He's taking a faux-socratic, patronising approach "Well [name of woman] comma, [the victim moved from her station not saying she should be hit but she did move] [pass-ag filler such as Yes? Nay? Prithee?] [name of woman] comma, " it's skin-crawling.
agree with all of that. Thanks for making the clear points.
weka – how could you "agree with all that" it's so clearly a misinterpretation/misrepresentation of what I've clearly described?
You have spent the evening trying to establish an equivalence between the woman being pushed and the woman being violently assaulted
I agree with this and it seems like standard progressive analysis. Feel free to make an argument against it.
I've pointed out before that you often fail to explain your thinking and instead rely on asking questions. I accept you think you've described things clearly, but unfortunately this is how it comes across. Clarifying thinking to people we are talking with is useful in debate. I find it more satisfying too.
I don't find it skincrawling. I think you are largely unversed in feminism and you present arguments that have long been explained by feminism as a problem for women and our rights eg that women assaulted are responsible for their assault.
No, Billie – the "prodding" was from Judith; she prodded/poked/pushed/elbowed the person who removed the tape fence.
Why, I don't know. Perhaps you could explain?
Billie, perhaps you might have a view on how the person who removed the standards might have felt when they were approached/pushed/prodded. If you were in that position, how might you have felt? After all, your only action involved removing a temporary fence.
From what I saw on the video, the remover barely reacted at all to the pushing.
"if you only action was to remove a temporary fence". Sounds innocent enough Robert. But actually that fence was the barrier between the baying mob and the peaceful women's group.
A number of women were assaulted at Albert Park. The wonderful women stewards who surrounded Posie and risked their physical integrity (they were punched and kicked, spat at) to save her life.
That fence was flimsy at best. Its removal was not a reason to poke/prod/elbow anyone.
Do you believe it was?
Look over here!!! Lets all get destracted by me pointing out a woman who prods another woman at a demo in the context of barriers……….
I'm not trying to distract, anger. It is possible, I believe, to discuss details of complex issues without an alterior motive such as wishing to distract.
agree with Anker here, the removal of that fence was pivotal in letting the protestors move into the area designated for LWS, turning into a mob and surrounding the band rotunda. My understanding is that this would have been obvious to the people on the ground, as was the absence of police who had said they would be there to maintain order.
weka – the person who removed the tape-fence was not deserving of being pushed/poked/elbowed, were they?
Or were they?
I don't think about it in terms of deserving, but you are the one arguing here that an elderly woman punch in the head unprovoked is somehow complicit in her own assault.
You seem really intent on getting people to talk about the pushing rather than punching in the head that led to what appears to be PTSD. That's why people are saying you are minimising the assault.
You appear to want to draw some equivalence between the two. I think they're apples and oranges.
"you are the one arguing here that an elderly woman punch in the head unprovoked is somehow complicit in her own assault."
No, I'm not!! You are assigning that to me.
I am asking, over and over, whether there is recognition that Judith poked/prodded/elbowed the fence-remover, or not.
No-one, including you, will address that simple point. Beyond that, we can talk.
Why the evasion????
In fact, I told you I recognised this 3 hours ago. Several times.
https://thestandard.org.nz/daily-review-05-03-2024/#comment-1991703
The person who removed the tape/fence was facilitating an invasion of a space occupied by women who were entitled to be present in it unmolested. And the potential (later actual) invaders were a much more numerous mob which included a number of physically larger and stronger people carrying signs which proclaimed their extreme hostility for all to see. Anyone who was trying to prevent all that was unquestionably in the right.
"The person who removed the tape/fence was facilitating an invasion"
Nonsense. A tape fence is nothing more than a token. Anyone could have stepped through or over it.
Robert it was not a tape fence, whatever that is but a sturdy metal one of the type that can form an unbroken line when they are slotted togther onto lugs.
Okay, I retire, defeated.
There were two fences.
The one of tape – was intended to create a visual no-man's land between the metal barrier and the attendees of the LetWomenSpeak event. (See video below)
Some context:
https://youtu.be/Dos0FlaWIxM?si=UF6ncS5xVQ_p6MwU
thanks, excellent explainer.
I couldn't find the video, will be bookmarking.
Looking at the person pulling out the tape fence stakes, I'm wondering if that is in fact a man.
do you know what it says on the sign that the assaulter is carrying before he bunches Hobson?
It appears to say: "Go Home Posie".
It is on a Twitter thread that names him, so I've attempted to just post the image link:
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/GHz082FbsAAGM7b?format=jpg&name=large
Yes I now realise Robert was talking about the rope fence inside the metal fence and closer to the band rotunda.
On this video, I have also linked to the longer version this morning, it is clear without doubt that the Police were not there, had retired and left the women alone & vulnerable to the press of the crowd at the very least and to the bashing, pushing and clunking with placards at worst.
There is no difference of opinion in the world that justifies citizens meting out violence on other citizens. NONE. There is no colour of right that says it is OK to bash and threaten if you perceive you are on the right side, whether or not all the handmaidens and media support this. NONE
As you know, my partner and daughter were there on the day.
No-one was attacking the men attendees. A curt, "Get out of here" from my partner to someone shouting through a megaphone in his ear, resulted in that protestor against women speaking, going somewhere else.
I have spoken to other women who attended that were targets of aggression and violence.
Thank you, Shangreah, I was " talking about the rope fence inside the metal fence and closer to the band rotunda".
I believe Judith Hobson also travelled several hundred km, by plane, in order to stop transgender people living their lives with dignity.
https://www.nzherald.co.nz/kahu/nana-bashed-at-posie-parker-rally-outraged-over-sentence-of-her-young-attacker/IP644WFAENBM5CWUWSMJCZNVQA/
It is unlikely that this excursion was taken in the spirit of knowledge seeking and camaderie.
"I believe Judith Hobson also travelled several hundred km, in order to stop transgender people living their lives with dignity."
Why do you believe that? Is the idea of women speaking and listening an act of violence?
"It is unlikely that this excursion was taken in the spirit of knowledge seeking and camaderie."
On the contrary, this is the most likely scenario when you are speaking about older women rather than young men. Also when you take into further consideration the event format and intention, as opposed to the protest against women speaking and listening intention and misinformation.
Robert comma you know what my view is comma Robert comma yes/pass-ag patronising filler question mark Robert comma men who hit women should go to jail. And Robert comma that Robert is the only thing that matters about this incident comma Robert.
But knock yourself out dood (before a TRA does – after all everything is twanzfowbicke so even the hashtag bekind allies will get a good slapping eventually… The TQ+ movement will eat itself in the end (when it finishes eating crayons)
For god sake Robert. I am sure you are a well meaning person and good human being. You are just hopelessly barking up the wrong tree here and it is coming as the sort of questioning women have had to endure for centuries when it comes to violence and sexual violence.
The woman who got shuved by Judith is an absolute red herring. She may not have liked it or it may not havebothered her too much. She could have put a complaint to the police if she wanted to, but it appears she didn't. Many of us have been shoved a bit at protests especially if "terriortory" is being breached. I am not even sure it was deliberate by Judith, although it could have been.
The issue here is the violent repeated assault by a young man against an elderly women. Have you seen the photos of her bruises? Did you read about the injuries, physical and psychological?
You have failed to listen to the women on this site and their concerns about gender ideology and their sex based rights. You simply do not get it as a number of the men on this site.
"The woman who got shuved by … is an absolute red herring. She may know have like it or she may have not bothered about it"
Oh
my
goodness.
She may have been okay with the assault?
I rest my case.
your case appears to be this:
Hobson attracted the her serious physical assault by a man because she tried to stop the integrity of the boundaries around LWS.
The pushing of the woman trying to remove the fence is equivalent to the man punching the elderly woman repeatedly in the head.
Any other distraction that stops us talking about the man who violently assaulted the elderly women.
Wrong. Your summation of my argument is wrong.
I am not commenting on the assault upon Judith.
I am not drawing equivalence as you describe.
My question to you all is not intended as a distraction.
Weka, those "angles" are YOURS, not mine.
My question is simple and has no strings attached.
You, and others have attached those strings.
They are tying you down.
ok, but you still haven't explained what your argument is 🤷♀️
That would be one of the patronising bits. You sound like you think you are the wise one here and we don't know how limited we are.
Not wise, simple! My question was simple and unadorned.
Wise? Pfffft…
For there to be an assault there has to be intent. Did the elderly women push/poke the other person to cause her physical harm or to try and keep some sort of social order (perhaps so there wouldn't be greater harm)? To me it sounds like she was trying to keep social order by trying to maintain the integrity of the fencing rather than to cause harm. Was it the best way to do that – no – but then she's probably never been trained in what to do – and then things got way out of control – well beyond what she would be physically able to deal with anyway.
What was the young man's intent? It seem purposefully to cause harm and, with high levels of aggravation, because he hit her multiple times and because of the disparity between the two physically.
@mpledger. Spot on, the counter demonstration was there to stop the initial demonstration/event or whatever it my be described as.
I would have thought that for the “granny basher” being part of a counter demonstration and using violet action to shut down a event like this would have been considered a aggravating factor in sentencing.
"For there to be an assault there has to be intent. Did the elderly women push/poke the other person to cause her physical harm or to try and keep some sort of social order…"
Are you making a joke?
Push/poke is push/poke. I suspect the only defence in law would be self-preservation/defense, but please prove me wrong.
If a kid chases a ball towards the road and an adult grabs the kid to stop him running onto the road – is that assault or is that physical contact to avert risk of an accident? Intent is important.
It's like the Japanese subway – they have marshals to push people into carriages so that the doors can close when they are overfill. There is obvious physical contact but it's not considered assault because the intent is to be helpful, there is no intent to harm.
100% Billie
Peters and Hipkins agree there is a need for new planes
https://www.stuff.co.nz/politics/350201248/humiliating-embarrassing-luxon-pushed-upgrade-military-gear
Don't even know where to start with this reply LoL.
I suppose we could start with the Labour Alliance Coalition cancelling the Option for 8 J's Model C130's in the early 2000's and kicking the can down the Rd with a stupid SLEP that didn't really address any of the major issues on the Aircraft but systems/ avionics instead of Engineering & Airframe which nearly fell over because of the age of the RNZAF C130 Fleet even back then LoL.
Or we look at the FAMC Business Case that the NZDF & MoD took to Cabinet in the final 12-18mths of the last National Government?
Where Mr Key, Bling & Treasury did their collective Nana over the costs of replacing both the C130's & B757's while at same time Business Case for the P3 Replacement had been or was about to be approved.
Against the advice of the NZDF & MoD the FAMC was split up, the C130 replacement was approved but going from 8 Model's to 5 Models while the telling Military & MoD to come back in +6yrs time because according to Treasury there was still plenty of life left in the B757's even though the RNZAF/ Military uses them rather differently to your bog standard Airline/ Cargo Operator.
So fast forward to 6yrs, so here we are again FFS!
Poor Chippy had issues in his final 18mths of Government with B757's, could've he ordered the replacements?
Yes, but in light what has happened with a number of Government of contracts atm, they probably would've got chopped?
The other issue was the forthcoming DWP & DCP now out in June not September as originally planned. Had Chippy ordered the B757 replacement, may've equipment upset the delicate funding for other Major NZDF & MoD Infrastructure & Capital Equipment Replacement/ Upgrades.
So my assumption, which I believe was the correct one, if that was decision by the last Labour Govt was to wait for the new DWP & DCP to be released and go form there.
Now weather this Government does this?
Is how long, is a piece of string or more correctly how long is the rope to hang themselves IRT to their talk of Defence Cuts (NZDF Budget 6.5% cut & MoD 7.5% cut) while increasing funding to the NZDF & MoD Budgets etc amongst word pasta they said to the Australian's recently?
Just to note on the proposed Defence Budget Cuts by National, the NZDF 6.5% cuts does actually mean cuts to NZDF capabilities btw because their nothing else left to cut.
1st on the list is the Seasprites, Karman has pulled out of the Helicopter Business, so the spare parts are becoming tight & NZDF was only meant to get 15yrs out of them which getting close to that mark or may even be over that 15yr period now?
Treasury is sniffing hard around wanting to contract out the RNZAF's Pilot & Air Crew Training syllabus to the Private Sector! Which hasn't worked in the UK or in Canada btw & has been a complete shit fight resulting in a massive shortage of Pilots etc!
Not sure what can be cut in the Navy atm, but they would highly effected by the grounding of the Seasprites across all its Helicopter capable ships.
So during the reign of Queen Liza, Elizabeth II, there were a lot of holes in a lot of buckets.
History Reprise – Henry founder of the English navy, grandfather of Elizabeth 1, was married to Elizabeth of York – rightful Queen of he realm.
The failure to join the Oz buy of Hercules was a mistake by Labour 2000, surprising since they could have rationalised a priority on transport to explain the loss of the fighter wing.
Then 2017-2023 Labour could have funded the B757 replacement and Orion to Poseidon.
Thus with the ANZAC's and LAV's of the 1999-2008 era they could have said they did all the heavy lifting on defence funding.
At the moment with National's focus on funding partners, one wonders what will be on the new transport planes (Fly Emirates maybe – taking the Americas Cup sponsorship to new off the ground and sea foil levels). Or Trump Premier House (depending on 2024 results).
The debate at the moment is over whether we can retain inter-operability if outside AUKUS Pillar 2.
https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/political/508926/aukus-a-military-pact-designed-to-contain-china-says-labour
Yes not buying the J's in the 2000's would've freed up alot money atm to replace the B757's, but as you said reorientation the NZDF to towards a more sustainable UN Peacekeeping/ Peace Enforcement Defence Force but the Labour Alliance Coalition didn't considering 3/4's of the NZDF was involved with Peacekeeping Mission in Timor Leste since 99.
The Labour Alliance Coalition couldn't even be bothered to fund the NZDF Lesson Learnt's from that Operation as well unlike Oz so much for their stupid word salad from the Coalition at the time which the punters took hook line & sinker but Military LoL.
Also speaking of the Labour Govt under Chippy according the Australian Senate committee hearing. Andy Little also appears to have given the NZDF & MoD in principle the to a fact finding mission to buy lock stock & barrel the entire MRH90's that were grounded here in Oz in wake of recent HADR events in NZ & the forecast Natural Disasters in NZ. But apparently it went cold at Cabinet Level back in NZ, even though the NZDF was successful when the brought the ex RAN Seasprites for $250m 15 odd yrs ago.
This could very will bite someone in the ass in the near future, as the last HADR event in NZ near broke the NZDF in more ways than one. As the servicing of the 8 NH90's is still behind schedule & doesn't like it will be cleared until May atm. Heck even extra 4 NH90's will give the NZDF some redundancy & make the Fleet more sustainable (Rise Train Sustain).
There was a NZDF/ MoD Capabilities Team at the recent Singapore Airshow & I believe they spent a bit of time in the Airbus tent LoL.
Which isn't strange because the new hangers at Ohakea are designed to take the A400's & A330 MRTT's btw.
I am not surprised they are looking at Airbus, Boeing rep has gone down – the Poseidon plane being one of the last of pre merger standard (decline in production quality since).
Taking on MRH90's (ex Dec 2024) would have kept Oz happy and been useful in the climate change era as to relief after floods etc (that and no coastal shipping development means another "infrastructure" capability vulnerability).
Boeing has always going to shit ever since they merged McD, as McD is management systems have to be some of the stupid ideas going around at the time & Boeing was Engineering Safety focus.
Boeing's current Management Team is all Ex McD and yet they can't work out what's wrong with Boeing LoL!
Airbus has a lot of flexibility across it's fixed wing fleet, the RAAF has the MRTT's, Malaysia has the A400's in a Strategic Airlift & Tanker Role.
I'm hoping some NZ based Journalists would do a FOI or whatever it's called in NZ about the NZDF & MoD along with Andy Little making inquires IRT to buying the entire ADF MRH90 Fleet only for Cabinet to knock it back.
Would like to understand the reasons why?
Was it Political,
Was it Treasury,
Or something else?
Awww. I have a soft spot for Finn and U2. Don't Dream it's Over. Should be the anthem of our times.
U2 & Neil Finn Don’t Dream It’s Over live at Sphere Las Vegas – 2024-03-02 – U2gigs.com
https://youtu.be/W6Svx2AgWuU?si=kIl4UnXByawCSIa_
Aah..!..music criticism…
I note your 'soft' spot for finn..
Most appropriate…given how 'soft' his music is..
With that ditty being a benchmark of that'soft'…(and one that has me leaping for the dial..happy to never hear again..too mawkish/treackly for my tastes..)
As as for u2…?…they too have softened over the years ..so the meeting of the two works on the 'soft' scale ..
But listenable..?..no…no..!
I don't listen to U2 now, but their earlier work was a major dance track to my youth. Plus politics for the masses!
Like how early split enz were brilliant/envelope-pushing…(and still hold up well..)
(First saw them @ auckland uni cafe…very early on…)
And crowded house was the culmination of n. Finn sucking the life out of the enz…with his oh so soft-rock…
I am not diabetic…but n.finn gives me a sugar overload/spike..
Some people want to fill the world with silly love songs
And what's wrong with that?
😉
James taylor..Carol king..
Nothing wrong with 'soft' per se..
They both..and many others.. wrote love songs… brilliant..!..both of them ..
But n.finn is from the dark-side..
Sent here to kill good music .
I'm also a fan of the Style Council. Although I gather Weller was a bit of a dick when he left the Jam.
Luv the jam..luv the style council..
My best boast-concert..?
James brown..@ the apollo..up in harlem…
He hadn't played n.y. for about five years..
Audience 85% african american..15% other..
Everyone dressed up to the nines…
I walked into the men's room..to find a half a dozen african-american women jostling around a large silver tray..with a large spiral of cocaine on it..
I apologized… thinking I was in the wrong room..
They heard my accent..and thrust the tray at me..
And a good time was had by all..
And j.brown lifted the roof on the apollo…to about the wildest audience reaction I have ever experienced….
It was quite the nite…
Yeah, the music section.
This weekend gone I saw 3 bands in 3 cities. (CC activists look away).
Due to not paying attention to dates I said yes to a gig in Aucks while committed to gigs in and around Wellies.
Friday night Queens of the Stone Age at TSB. Fantastic trip through their career, Jon Theodore on drums a highlight for me. 60% boys 40% girls.
Sat night at Auckland Town Hall, Dinosaur Jr. Very loud (only lasted an hour in the auditorium, had to retreat to the bar). Finished with their cover of Cure's Just like heaven. 70% boys 30% girls.
Due to Jet 'might get you there' Star arrived at Hutt Sounds in time to see Human League. Dare was one of my first records. Great set, finished with Don't you want me? and then for an encore Being Boiled and Electric dreams. Lots of costume changes. 60%girls 40% boys.
Home at midnight with a rotation of earworms cycling through. Very happy.
ACT for once is in agreement with (most) sentiments expressed on this thread:
https://www.msn.com/en-nz/news/national/act-blasts-sentence-for-man-who-punched-71yo-woman-at-posie-parker-protest/ar-BB1jkskx?ocid=mailsignout&pc=U591&cvid=78f5e12238d04a5d947f84f422b24f0a&ei=9
It's not for once, unfortunately.
Cannot bear to watch channel 31 anymore as the nationals gang conduct yet another assault on the poor and reason itself. It is just too hard on my sensibilities to endure these horrible people making excuse after excuse to fracture the social contract and beat up on the poor. They are Adam Smiths "vile maxim" personified writ large!