- Date published:
6:00 am, March 29th, 2023 - 312 comments
Categories: open mike - Tags:
Open mike is your post.
For announcements, general discussion, whatever you choose.
The usual rules of good behaviour apply (see the Policy).
Step up to the mike …
Hopefully they take a good look into Nash, have to suspect his leaking of cabinet discussion to his donors isn't a one off. What chance leaked information has been used to secure financial advantage by the recipients? Prior warning would more than give them a chance to rearrange their affairs or place strategic investments. Dangerously close to corruption and it needs to be investigated.
I don't think Hipkins had much choice but to sack Nash in this circumstance. Whenever there is a leak from Labour from now on, the immediate suspicion would point to Nash if he were to stay in cabinet. So, it would be very difficult for his colleagues to trust him.
Not that it gives me any pleasure to see Nash gone. He seems like a genuinely good down-to-earth guy and I think both the Labour Party and NZ politics will be poorer without him if he decides to pull the pin on his career after this.
Whoever Nash emailed back in 2020 clearly sat on the emails and has decided now was a good time to leak them in order to finish Nash off and damage the government. Some donor! Some "mate!"
A good lesson in if you lie down with dogs, you'll get up with fleas.
Nash is such an idiot, he had one job – keep Napier a Labour seat. And he has royally f*cked that up with delusions of grandeur.
The number of Natzos including Mr Hosking, who seem to have some regard for this Cabinet underminer indicates a fundamental problem with him to me. NZ Labour needs to do more things Torys do not like one little bit rather than be Tory Lite.
Another blogger–one Bomber Bradbury–predicts more damning statements will emerge during the Slash Inquiry which will likely end his career for good.
No condemnation by the Prime Minster of the violence to shown Kellie-Jae Keen Minshull and the women hurt by the anti women's rights activists on Saturday 25/3/23
No condemnation of the cancelling of a peaceful gathering by anti women's rights activists exercising the thugs veto.
#The Whole World is Watching
# Let Women Speak
# Speak Up for Women.
Shanreagh, well what did you expect?
Women, or females have always been 2nd class humans.
Now they drop down another level.
Transgender women, by virtue of being born male, are of course more important than a woman who has been female since birth.
Yes of course I agree.
When you frame it as an issue about the control of any space/thought by the patriarchy the argument fits.
As soon as I saw this whole anti women protest and framing of rights to enable men dressed as women being given preference over women it was hard not to see this.
'So I'm all for this – if my cobbers, men, want to enter women's safe spaces while dressed as women who I am to stop them?'
I’m starting to get really angry about this. My mother was a quiet staunch feminist, but she could be a bit stroppy. She was an old school nurse. She knew girls who got back street abortions, girls who had been abused and raped, all by men of course.
I thought we as a society had been all through this, but now I can see things going backwards.
And it’s not just women’s rights. It’s also the use of violence, threats, intimidation and people looking the other way because they don’t want to face abuse or to lose their jobs.
I work for a large bank. We have something of a Pride mafia. I’m getting young woman saying that they are pressured to include their pronouns and the Pride flag on their email signature. And they need to proactively say “trans women are real women”.
Ah, yes, institutional pressure super-imposed on top of peer pressure. I’ve deleted the Style Guide, start off my communication with a neutral salutation, and sign off respectfully. My e-mail signature provides all the necessary professional info.
It is important not to give in to Social Media hype & fads and not to become a complacent & obedient rule-follower. I’d use to worry more about humans devolving into sheeple than about transhumanism but these are starting to overlap more and more …
Trans women are "men dressed as women "?
Patriarchs in drag, you reckon?
I wonder if those people feel patriarchal?
Or do they feel quite the opposite.
You clearly know nothing of the arguments Robert.
I've given up explaining now as I am getting the feeling your questions are not asked in good faith.
So far as Davidson goes, what concerns me is that the statements she made about cis white males seems to have been made with a lot of conviction and passion.
So, I am wondering if what she said was speaking her genuine views in the heat of the moment, and that she may have let the mask slip a bit. In calmer circumstances, she may have had the sensibility to couch her views in a less controversial manner.
Really? I think most Ministers (should) know that they are their portfolio when they are out and about.
So they watch their words …….always
To dismiss/ignore concerns and respond with incorrect statements doesn't inspire me greatly.
It really doesn't matter who is asking you if if respond inappropriately or give incorrect information.
I agree she should not have made the statement at all. And the fact that she was even at the protest given her position as a cabinet minister seems a bit inappropriate.
But, if she was speaking her true beliefs, then it could give some insight into her likely motivations and where she may think the problems need to be "fixed". The fact she hasn't directly apologised to white cis males says a lot IMO.
Marama has a statement about what she actually means up on the daily blog. If you can hold your nose feel free to read it.
Frankly it doesn't look good. She might have said, yeah I was trolling counter-spin and that was probably a bit dumb because they can post it straight on the internet these days. Its the sort of thing you do if your high on adrenaline and don't think about what your doing.
Instead she decided that violence by men needs to be the main issue. Violence by men is the most frequent threat to both women and the LGBT+ community. It doesn't seem to really be however the issue here, in a disagreement between a woman's rights group and a LGBT+ rights counter protest group. I highly competent leader in this situation would not be taking sides and would be seeking to allow both to politically resolve their differences.
This. Also, this is her job as Minister outside Cabinet for the Prevention of Family and Sexual Violence.
I'm personally more shocked by her unwillingness to condemn violence against the women at LWS than I am by the cis/white/men thing, but both are political incompetencies.
Me too Weka. When asked about the violence against the Let Women Speak rally, all she said was words to the effect of "I support my wonderful trans family". How in god's name can she remain as the Minister of violence prevention?????
I also object to her saying white cis males cause the violence. Aside for the fact that the stats don't back this up, it shows that she is deeply embedded in the ideology of crt where all white people are white supremicists.
I know this will lose the Greens votes and rightly so
I don't think I've ever thought that a GP MP should lose their portfolio, but I do over this. They've done some stupid things at times, but this is another level. You cannot be partisan like this and be respected and keep public confidence in the official position. She should never hold a full Ministerial portfolio after this, and that includes welfare (which is one that I have hoped the GP would get at some point).
It's really hard to tell because she hasn't said. But anti-racism in NZ developed in its own right without taking on CRT from the US in the way you imply. Back in the day, the idea was that the dominant system since colonisation has been a system based in Pākehā values and this has harmed Māori (I completely agree with this). That is different than saying all Pākehā are white supremacists.
Similarly, if we acknowledge that men have privilege in that system that women don't, and that men also have self interest in maintaining that system, it's not hard to understand that men have a responsibility that is different from women in changing the system. But again, this is different from saying all men are misogynists.
Me too Weka.
I also agree with this from your 10.58am post
“Similarly, if we acknowledge that men have privilege in that system that women don’t, and that men also have self interest in maintaining that system, it’s not hard to understand that men have a responsibility that is different from women in changing the system. But again, this is different from saying all men are misogynists”.
(posting because TDB front page is a dog's breakfast and it's impossible to find anything).
If white cis males don't like what Marama says, they should just block their ears (channelling Winston 🙂
Why are you up on your hind-legs over what she said, tsmithfield?
The difference Robert is that Marama is the Minister for Prevention of Family violence. She has demonstrated very clearly that she doesn't give a dam about women getting attacked and intimadated if they don't share the same views as she does and also she spouts factually incorrect information that tarnishes one racial group.
Frankly its not on.
Because she is in a decision making position. If she honestly believes the violence problem is all about cis white males then she is likely to ignore other relevant issues that need attention.
And, it seems unwise and inappropriate to be directly involved in this type of protest given her position as a minister. She should be maintaining objective distance from this sort of stuff.
Her outburst was likely a result of the combination of both the factors above IMO.
So, far as I am personally concerned, my ears are not so tender that they can't cope with these sorts of outbursts.
I doubt she does believe this. She's an experienced MP in the area of family violence, including Māori, so she knows that it's not just cis white men. I think her comment isn't saying that cis white men do all the violence, I think she's talking about roles cis white men have in the dominant system that runs society. So violence here would include racism and colonisation. It's not something an MP in her position could run publicy. TPM might get away with such statements, but the GP have to speak to the mainstream and this concept is not something you can discuss off the cuff like this. It's complex.
Exactly! It is not a B&W issue – binary thinking and polarisation are joined at the hip. Much of the commentary I've seen here on TS in recent days fits the mould of if-you're-not-with-us-then-you're-against-us. For example, why cannot Davidson stand up for Trans rights and be against violence? One answer doesn’t negate or exclude all other possible answers. We seem to be
driftingracing away fast from intelligent debate to polarised shouting. This raises the question whether this is happening by coincidence or by design [or both] …
She can stand up for trans rights and be against violence generally, but apparently not against the violence at the protest directed at KJK, the women who wanted to speak, and others attending.
What's your thinking there? That some people are manipulating the situation to create polarisation and useless debate? Seems to me that Counterspin etc do this, but it's oblique. That fight is between the conspiracy and FR crowd and TAs/TRAs.
Or do you mean there are people who want the TAs, GC people, and everyone in a chaotic spiral of polarisation? Who is doing that?
Incognito Marama failed to condemn the violence that was inflicted on the Let women speak people. In response to questions about whether she condoned it, she didn't reply, she merely spouted 'trans are wonderful" or words to that effect. In doing this the message if trans are elevated about everyone else and even if they and their allies use violence, I will fail to condemn it.
Its not true that some trans m to f aren't violence.
The Malaysian Dr in the Hawkes bay who drugged and sexually abused yonng boys.
The man who identifies as a women who raped a man after a rugby match.
The man who identified as a women who stabbed three people in a Hamilton restaurant.
Of course not all trans identified women are violent,
Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Not even in a binary world.
I understand what you are saying. I don't entirely agree. But, I do agree that there is a history of patriachy in NZ that is thankfully now confined to the likes of extreme groups such as Destiny Church and the likes. And, hopefully, will soon go the way of the dinasours.
The problem with such a wide generalisation is that it lumps all of us white cis males into the same boat, when, in actuallity many of us have completely rejected that historical patriachal position, and try to encourage and empower women in our lives as much as we can.
We still high rates of rape and other MVAWG, so no, the patriarchy isn't confined to the likes of DC, it's mainstream.
The point about white men isn't that all individuals are culpable, it's that as a class, white men hold the privilege and have the most to lose from the patriarchal system ending. Even in your comment you sidestep what the system is and say it's almost over, a position which benefits white men. I don't think you are being nefarious here, I think many men are just oblivious. But the conflict of interest exists nonetheless.
I agree, I can only speak from my perspective. So, I acknowledge that I may be blind to the aspects you point to. So, I don't disagree. And, I think there has been a male power culture that has developed over many years that will take a long time to melt away.
I guess, all I can do is the best that I can to ensure I don't bring any such attitudes into my own relationships with women. I think it is great seeing women push more into traditionally male type roles. For instance, we employed a female engineering student during university holidays a few years back. She commented that there were very few females in her class. But it was great to see that she had the courage to move into a male-dominated field.
I think the more women feel empowered to move into such roles, the more things will start to equalise for women in terms of pay equality etc.
And I agree that there are many fields that tend to be dominated by women, but are badly underpaid. Teaching and nursing spring to mind. And, I have been on record a number of times here saying that I think both those roles need to be paid much better.
The patriarchy is by no means dead.
Women by no means have gained all they seek when we see Pay Equity is still needed
For instance are we sure that the starting rates etc for male dominated trades professions are the same as female dominated ones?
In the olden days we used to compare police starting rates with nurses starting rates. Are they the same now? The issue may got even more pointy now that many nurses qualify per university degree nowadays. I am not sure if Police do? I thought it was attendance at Police College. My niece's partner is on the waiting list for police and he has not got a degree or trade. Also primary school & ece teachers, similarly qualified to male tech teachers etc.
Not to mention the anti women rights demo on 25/3.
I tend to agree. Some of that is self-perpetuating though.
For instance, if we advertise for a receptionist or office role, we probably get 90% females applying. We actually have a male in that role at the moment though. And I do tend to cringe a bit when I hear male business owners saying “they need to employ a new office lady”.
When we advertise for maintenance engineers it is nearly always males applying. We did have a female apply for a recent role that we would have very much liked to employ in that role. But she had found something else, so that didn't work out.
So, a lot of the issue is not so much to do with employers not being progressive enough. But can be to do with the time it takes for traditional role expectations to change.
So far as nurses and teachers are concerned, I think from any perspective they need to be paid a lot more. From my right wing perspective I would argue that wages need to meet the market. And that market includes Australia which is an attractive option for our nurses and teachers as the pay is a lot better.
TSmithfield it is difficult to know who you are responding to without either link by time or quote.
Sorry, I need to remember to do that.
Well put, weka. I'm concerned that some here are overly keen to disparage and dismiss the actions and thoughts of people who ordinarily earn praise on this site.
in what way?
Because we took there country, because the further left thunk that me and my ilk are the 😈
Cause and Effect of Colonialism on Culture Wars in Modern Day Nova Zeelandia by Dr B.W.A. Ghorn.
Because white cis men wear browwn leather shoes??
Marama is accusing a whole category of people of violence.
And that category should just block their ears when something offensive is said?
Sauce for the goose Robert
The response by Marama Davidson also has shades of Aaron Gilmore and & ‘Don’t you know who I am?’
Ok, then condemn the violence, say her work gives her access to statistics and then use the correct statistics about where violence is coming from without using buzz words that many people won't know the meaning of
I think she is bordering incompetent judging by her lack of grasp of the statistics in her own portfolio. And tosh to say 'oh she was hurt……not hurt enough to prevent her attendance.'
Tosh to say she was hurt?
She'd been struck, I heard, by a motorcycle and was shocked by the experience. That reaction to near-calamity often produces an adrenaline-fuelled reaction which energises and excites, rather than subdues and sedates, I have experienced.
She went on after the accident to have a jolly old time at the counter protest, some said she spoke.
If she did not feel she could have done justice to both points of view she should not have spoken to the media after. That would have been the sensible thing to have done.
Sure it would have been viewed as a no comment and we'd have probably all forgotten it by Sunday.
Robert, I have already totally condemned what happened to Marama if what happened to her was deliberate and I am not too thrilled if it was an accident, because motorcyclists are supposed to stopped at a white line.
I am not sure she was knocked down.
If you check the link there is some photographic evidence of the event. She is not seen knocked down, but is grasping her abdomen. You do know that this incident happened at around 10.40am and Marama continued on to the demonstration and was interviewed sometime later by Counterspin?
Being knocked over by a motorcycle on a pedestrian crossing is no excuse for what she said and how she said it. She is a cabinet minister, she’s supposed to be a grown up among grown ups
As for white men committing violent, how about you ask the Indian community whose business are being targeted and workers murdered, about the colour of the perpetrators. Cos I’m sure they won’t be saying white…
you’ve been caught in the Spam filter, again, because of a new typo in your email address.
"Being knocked over by a motorcycle on a pedestrian crossing is no excuse for what she said and how she said it."
I certainly could influence how she said it; shock, adrenaline, reaction to trauma etc. could certainly cause someone to behave in a certain way.
Maybe if the motorcyclists were good old white boys on Harleys, but I think they were Pope Tamaki’s lads, on their Harleys.
Anyway you’re just making excuses for what and how she said it.
she had the swagger of a bully, just like the mob of thugs and the counter protests.
"I certainly could influence how she said it; shock, adrenaline, reaction to trauma etc. could certainly cause someone to behave in a certain way."
Very few confirmed details of the incident, so unable to determine how much weight to give this possibility.
It also remains possible that the statement she gave was a true and accurate one of her perspective.
Whatever Davidson suffered and whatever her injuries, it was serious enough to get it checked out and treated at A&E. A visit to A&E is stressful on its own.
Thanks. If further details are released about what the assessment and the treatment was then we will be more able to weight accordingly.
everyone has a right to health care privacy.
Yes they do. So they can also be released – or not – depending on what MD wishes.
I didn't demand that this be done.
What I said was, IF further details were released…
sure, but it sounds like she can be believed if she produces proof. I'm saying that people have a right to privacy in health care without that kind of pressuring.
Does it matter how badly she was hurt?
I didn’t treat her but in any case, medical records are private and confidential. But you know that.
Rumour has it that a famous film director was in town who helped creating this stunt for Davidson, including being knocked off her feet by a stunt-man on a motorcycle, Harry Styles as Dr Ropata treating Davidson in Shortland Street A&E, and the interview ambush, so that Davidson could say how she really felt about cis white men with plausible deniability. Once I have the sworn affidavits of the director, the whole film crew, and all the extras I will share these with you forthwith. Perhaps then you ‘will be more able to weight accordingly’, although I’m not holding my breath on that one.
Already answered the issue of privacy – which I fully support – with weka.
"If further details are released about what the assessment and the treatment was then we will be more able to weight accordingly."
The IF remains the most significant part of my statement.
The rest of your comment is noted, but considered (by me) not worthy of reply.
The “if” is a conditional clause. In other words, you may re-open your mind and may possibly even change it, but only if more info comes to hand regarding Davidson’s physical (and emotional/psychological) condition after the alleged (did it even take place?) at the time of the interview ambush. The chances of this happening are slim, and you know this, so to me it sounds like an implausible denial from you.
The rest of my comment is a more ‘juicy’ alternative version of events and one that’s possibly more attractive (and palatable?) to some depending on their personal biases and associated internal narratives (inner voice). You seem too grounded for that, but one should never assume – I never really expected you to take it seriously and respond to it.
"The “if” is a conditional clause. "
The rest – once again – is noted, but considered (by me) not worthy of reply.
Phew! I did pay attention in English class all those years ago.
It is good to know you won’t change your views on Davidson any time soon then – steady as she goes. I admire people who stand up for their principles with unwavering integrity.
"It is good to know you won’t change your views on Davidson any time soon then – steady as she goes. I admire people who stand up for their principles with unwavering integrity."
It's integrity to change your views if information comes to hand that negates them. IF any information was provided to offset the information I have seen of Davidson's behaviour after the motorbike incident, then of course I would give more weight to claims of shock. But even her recent statement someone linked to above doesn't seem to do that.
Your use of the word views show that they are nothing to do with principles, so I don't know why you add the second sentence in.
I do put value in my principles, but will change my view in line with my principles of honesty, fairness and truth.
As a cis-white man I am not in the slightest offended, shocked or surprised by what Davison said – her words being an accurate summary of everything CRT has been teaching for years.
I will accept the moment was highly charged and emotional – mobs are a like that – and that MD allowed herself to say something that in different circumstances she would have known better not to have said out loud to a journo recording it.
But you cannot fault her for being honest about what she believes and her refusal to making a groveling apology.
(Interestingly enough, the trans ally in Canberra who had the microphone @ #LetWomenSpeak also spoke about the violence of white men – but added religious – when speaking of the harm done to women. See 1:08:28. For many women's rights campaigners, it is a familiar redirection away from women wanting single-sex spaces – using undefined terms such as patriarchy and feminism.)
Yeah – anyone from a western religious tradition is pretty accustomed to the sneers and attacks. I am not a Christian but I do feel for the sincere believers who find themselves too often let down by their institutions and adrift in a world in which their beliefs are derided as reactionary and backward.
In my broad view it is the dissolution of the ideas that sustained stable family formation that will hurt our societies the most. And we have a ways to go before this process plays out.
there's been a shift from class analysis to thinking it's about individuals. Hence that woman can't see the class of males, and tries to say that patriarchal men are the problem instead of the system that privileges men as a class.
I'd love to know when this shift happened. Obviously there are still plenty of feminists with a class analysis (eg JCJ), but it does seem like a third wave position to blame individuals. This is why I call GI ideology neoliberal. It's all about individual rights and the individuals who are to blame, the fight is lateral and trying to gain rights within the system, rather than trying to change the system. There's a superficial nod to the system or patriarchy or whatever, but it's got no real meaning.
People using terms without care about clear shared understandings of definitions is not helping.
Also, blithely implying only all of one demographic is responsible for the only harm that matters is just illogical.
agree about the increasing problem of people not being clear. Looks like an inability to articulate at times, but in other cases its very articulate people, so I’m guessing it’s weaponised unclarity. If they were clear their arguments would fall apart.
My guess is she was referencing the patriarchy rather than saying all cis white men and no other men, That’s a logical position. But because there is also the implication with contemporary liberal theory that individuals are responsible, it’s like saying cis white men are to blame even if they don’t do anything violent, simply because they exist and won’t bring down the patriarchy. Men who are let off that hook are cis, white men who adopt the ideology, and non-white men and TW. Not logical.
It fails because men are humans and we need to bring them along, and because obviously there are violent non-white men and TW who uphold the patriarchy too.
Also, Isla Bryson might be white, but they’re also trans so they can be excused too.
"Religious men in positions of power – these are our enemy." @ 1:42:05.
It's a lead in to her follow-up, that transwomen are not to be feared.
She's identified a threat – as THE threat, so that the concerns women raise about the lack of single-sex provisions can be dismissed. From her admittedly very short speech, I don't think her analysis goes deeper than that.
So was it a cis white male who inflicted this violence on her?
And crikey, she looked pretty perky walking along with her entourage
Yeah! Perky! We hate that, right!
Marama has been saying the same things for years, on her Twitter feed.
I don't buy it was somehow caused by a passing motorbike.
But, yeah 🙂
This is really not ok Shanreagh. One, it's not unusual for people who are injured to not know at the time the extent of the injury. As Robert points out, adrenaline will lifte energy (that's its function) and it can mask symptoms.
Two, if you minimise the physical harm to a political opponent then you open the door to minimise physical harm to the people you care about.
This is not what I was saying. I did not minimise harm to her. I stated a fact that she was able enough to attend the protest.
I think it odd that she went after being injured.
I think it odd too that she had not the self knowledge nor wit to think, I'm not thinking calmly or clearly.
A 'no comment' was all she needed to do.
If she was going to comment then at least condemn violence where ever it occurs and also give out correct information.
It is the latter framing of that makes me think she is not across her portfolio.
No doubt this will also be excused by adrenaline.
I am aware that people from all sides will be commenting.
The point for me is that she went to an anti women's rights protest in the first place. That was the first & fundamental showing of a lack of political nous. This cannot be excused by adrenaline or being injured.
I don’t class Marama Davidson as political opponent as I am not standing for parliament
I know who I am not impressed by, that does not mean i politically oppose (see above comment) them just that I am reserving judgement on who I might vote for.
When I choose I will be pro that party’s views. The also rans just fade into the distance.
you did minimise harm. You even now are questioning why she went to the protest if she had been injured. This has been explained by two people.
You are also conflating the issue of harm with the issue of her stupidity in her statement. I know what your points are on the later, I am talking about hte former.
Not so odd for Green party co-leaders – keeping calm-ish and carrying on.
Nah, Molly has already dismissed that as “irrelevant” without any further explanation because it must be so obviously self-evident that any commentary would be superfluous (i.e. explaining is losing).
Irrelevant to a whole thread discussion about Marama Davidson.
Or do you think they are interchangeable?
Context is everything.
I believe that Shaw and Davidson are Co-Leaders of a secret sect called the Green Party. I believe that the two cases have striking similarities and things in common. I believe that you can easily spot a black eye but not a shock (or concussion). I believe that some people keep going after an incident, sometimes against better judgement and sometimes with impaired judgement.
It is obvious that you reject any counter-narrative around the motorcycle incident and reject any versions that align with Davidson’s own statements. In fact, you go as far as to question the incident itself, it seems, and will now devote your attention and forensic skills to finding a video of the incident (https://thestandard.org.nz/open-mike-29-03-2023/#comment-1942316).
You are not a critical sceptic but a straight-out denier. What will you do if you cannot find the video evidence? Or medical evidence? How on Earth “will [you] be more able to weight accordingly”? I don’t believe this ultimate question is relevant to you …
My bottom line is that people supporting anti women's rights protestors have lost my respect.
My second bottom line position is held by people supporting anti co governance campaigner Julian Batchelor.
Sure they can say as much as they want, and I support their right to say it etc etc but that does not mean I have to support their views.
again, I know what your position is generally, I am pointing to your minimising harm against a political opponent. This is dangerous. People will get hurt, and we will have no moral ground if we say that's ok, they're the enemy. This is what many TAs are doing as we speak.
Does Marama have the right to free speech?
Do the Trans community have the right to free speech even if shouted?
She does indeed. She also has to live with the political consequences of what she says.
Personally, I believe that her statement (that white cis men bear the primary responsibility for family violence) is a true statement of her belief.
Even though it's factually not true. Sadly, we know all too well in NZ, that Maori and Pasifika families are disproportionately affected by family violence.
Which leads me to wonder just how many of her other beliefs are equally unsupported by actual facts.
The core Greens are radicals.
When shocked, they express radical thoughts.
You don't like that?
If you are seeking her considered views, searching them out, please share your findings with us when you can.
Of course she was. She needs the boot as well. She needed it ages ago.
Ugg boots or more macho Doc Martens boots? In political debate it helps to know what people say and mean.
Can someone clearly outline the timeline for Marama Davidson’s outburst? There seems to be a fair amount of gaslighting by the media on this. BFM and RNZ constantly keep referring to her comments being made directly or immediately after she was struck by a motorcycle. I was of the understanding she was hit in the stomach on the way to the protest, spent an hour at the protest and then was approached afterwards by Counterspin. I am not particularly bothered by the subject of her statement, I regularly rage about white men, but I am concerned that politicians are able to make such off the cuff comments without repercussions being that they are paid a fair amount for the privilege of representing the NZ population at large. I’d like factual not emotive reporting from the media but that’s a bit of an oxymoron isn’t it. I guess she will either be rewarded or punished at the ballot box.
Chris Hipkins misses the point
Who is advising him on this issue?
I see the hands of incompetence here.
what point has he missed?
It should not matter who approaches for an interview. Minister's should be on their guard, sensible and across their portfolios whether talking to Granny Herald or Counterspin.
The fact that the Counterspin coverage was put up for us to see ie was not just written out, means that we can judge how badly she did by not condemning violence and giving out incorrect information. Both actions are as bad as each other. Also as we can see it we can also notice that the interviewers were actually not ‘in her face.’ PM needs to look at the 25/3 protest to understand what ‘in your face is’.
Would it be Ok for her to do this in other media?
I see no need for the PM to have done this. It just makes him look like he does not understand the issues…..
I would think that if a politician was aware they were being questioned by a known conspiracy group such as Counterspin they should be doubly cautious about how they respond.
I wish Marama had ignored the persistent and provocative Counterspin Media person but we can't, from the comfort of our own high-horses, know what it was like for her or those with her.
Nah, persistent and provocative is what media do [best], particularly talkback shock-jocks such as Hosking. Politicians and elected leaders & office-holders must be able [and willing] to front and not only on their own terms – leave that to the likes of Wayne Brown. If you can’t handle the heat, stay out of the kitchen.
I don't know of anyone who can "handle the heat" – heat is designed to frazzle.
Best to reject their "invitations" 🙂
No, not reject outright, but have strategies in place for dealing with media ambushes and the likes. This is what media training is for. Politics and leadership are not for the fainthearted; this is a different way of putting it that possibly sounds nicer 😉
Paraphrasing Hipkins, he didn’t expect perfection from Davidson under those circumstances. I agree with his stance that is not defending her words as such, which is what many more suspiciously minded people are making out.
Does media training include "post-motorcycle-strike" strategy?
Doubt it 🙂
No, but self-defence classes do help with evasive moves and how to fall and roll away without hurting yourself. It’s all in the technique.
How is this approach "persistent and provocative"?
That is a person who is still "in shock from the crash at a pedestrian crossing". Apparently.
"So you condone that violence…" the Counterspin interviewer asks/demands?
Don't be fooled.
Once again, Robert:
How is this approach "persistent and provocative"?
Listening to the "interview", I found the "interviewer", badgering.
That was after she made the 'cis white men' comment.
Is that an excuse for gaslighting/badgering?
Marama did well to dismiss the loaded questions, imo.
Passive projection Robert. The 'oppressor' projects their own image onto the target. Oldest trick in the play book- as you say.
"Is that an excuse for gaslighting/badgering?"
She wasn't being badgered when she made the offensive remark.
"Marama did well to dismiss the loaded questions, imo."
She didn't dismiss the question. She held up a piece of carboard like a petulant child.
She most certainly was being badgered!
It as a pig-fucker variant – Davidson knew.
That’s what activists tend to do, but much better to belittle and ridicule them, isn’t it?
"That’s what activists tend to do, but much better to belittle and ridicule them, isn’t it?"
Activists? She's a Minister of the Crown. She's also an accomplished communicator. The problem is not that she said something she later regretted. The problem is she actually believes what she was saying.
Davidson is also an NZ citizen and a national and international activist. She’s also a member of the Green Party that is strong on activism. Your point about being a Minister of the Crown is lost in the noise of your hot air.
You failed to make your point about Davidson being an accomplished communicator but I’m sure you had it in your head.
So, Davidson’s crime is that she spoke truth to power!? Yeah, that must come as a shock to RWs – they have trouble handling the truth.
You failed to respond to your own little snide put-down, rather unsurprisingly.
Knowing you, you will just run with this like a little doggie with a bone that is too big for you. I’d say, let it go before you trip over and it buries you.
"You failed to make your point about Davidson being an accomplished communicator but I’m sure you had it in your head."
You failed to understand the point. There is a big difference.
You see, being an 'accomplished communicator', she really ought to have done better than holding up a piece of cardboard. She really ought to have done better than making an inaccurate racist and sexist comment.
I see, but unlike so many others here, I’m not an accomplished mind reader and you failed to make your point by a long shot.
What is a skilled communicator-activist to do if not hold a placard? Use a megaphone and read a communiqué or the Party Manifesto? Did you write the quintessential Textbook for Political Activists by any chance?
So, now you’re criticising her poor communication skills again and not her beliefs!? How are your communicating skills when you’re knocked down for 5?
You’re really not any good at making clear points and robust arguments, are you?
"She most certainly was being badgered!"
Rubbish. This is what happens to politicians every day, it goes with the job. Marama is a seasoned politician. In this case she let her mask slip.
"I see, but unlike so many others here, I’m not an accomplished mind reader and you failed to make your point by a long shot."
This is a tactic you deploy to prolong an argument. It's not that clever.
You’re covering up the point that you failed to make but that you have dug into a giant hole. Stop digging, because you won’t strike gold down there, just more dirt.
"You’re covering up the point that you failed to make but that you have dug into a giant hole."
Not covering up anything. You're using the same old lines. It's boring.
You’re more predictable than my cat but at least he’s fun to watch and have around, so I can put up with his shit.
"so I can put up with his shit."
You probably should try a dirt box.
I understand people have different takes on this. But unless more details supporting this assumption is provided I agree with you.
There is another video of Marama Davidson at the rotunda doing a call and response with the crowd, which would also be after a 10:40 am incident. If I can find I'll post.
This woman also refers to Marama Davidson when she called in to Sean Plunket: Timestamped: https://youtu.be/JqJ0qArGrqE?t=1073
Short but here:
I think here might also be video of the motorbike incident because there are screenshots around. If I find I’ll post.
Those Green MPs are made of stern stuff.
Just as well, no Counterspinner jumped out in front of him for an interview ambush. God knows what he would have said about cis white men. Luckily, for Shaw though he spotted a black eye that he could use in his defence, in case he needed to explain anything he might have said while still in shock …
Good comment, incognito!
Case Dismissed. Next!
I have always been deeply suspious of Counterspin, but having watched the interview of Marama, I have to say it was an excellent piece of reporting. FYI this doesn't make me want to tune into them or support them in any way.
The reporter was merely asking Marama if she condemned the violence against the Let Women Speak women and Marama didn't she just parroted the line "I support our trans family"
BTW Robert and some others on the Standard, I am still waiting for some sort of condemnation of the violence towards the Let Women Speak crowd on Saturday.
I have just listened to a mother of three, who is 11 weeks pregnant and got stuck on the band rotunda, terrified out of her wits. She got out in the end because a very tall camera helped her through the mob……
So I am waiting guys…………
"Excellent piece of reporting" – pish to that!
Expecting condemnation of the actions of others by commenters here is a very strange expectation, Anker – are commenters somehow implicated by having not made a statement? That's a nonsense demand, imo.
I do wish the 11-weeks-pregnant woman had been informed beforehand, of the potential for trouble; Posie knew, hence the extra security detail. Thank goodness though, for the very tall camera!
This is just not true.
The security was there to stop things like lone people running at KJK or women speaking and harming them, and to make sure KJK could arrive and leave without being harassed as a woman on her own (or with other women).
No-one involved expected there to be a mob. The security was clearly insufficient to deal with a mob and they hadn't planned for a mob. I doubt the event would have gone ahead if they had thought there would be a mob. If you listen to the video, the security dude says almost as soon as they arrive at the rotunda that they have to leave. They were in no way prepared for this.
The advice to women attending was that if they were wearing adult human female or similar tshirts, was to take them off or turn them inside out when coming and going from the event. That's because they were at risk of assault. Not being mobbed. But women turning up to listen? I've not seen anything to suggest that the organisers knew they would be at risk.
There was also an expectation that the police would be there. This was a reasonable expectation, both because the organisers had been told they would be there, and because in NZ that's what the police do, they keep the peace.
I know people that chose not to go because of what had happened in Hobart, and because they could see the intensity of TRAs building online. But many women interested in LWS wouldn't know about those two things, it's something one would know if one was following closely. Hell, I was watching the livestream, having followed the LWS movement in the past, and I didn't expect what happened to happen.
The pregnant woman wasn't going to a protest. She was going to an open mike event called Let Women Speak. It should have been safe to do so. Please don't blame women for not predicting a mob.
weka, I have not blamed women for not predicting a mob. I said:
"I do wish the 11-weeks-pregnant woman had been informed beforehand…"
I'm curious at the number of times during this discussion, that I've had statements/intentions wrongly attributed to me. Is that what gaslighting is?
I took your statement to mean that KJK knew how dangerous it would be, the presence of security meant that she knew, and you wish she had told people coming to her event.
Did I get that right?
Not "she" but all concerned.
Did they not have observers and commentators who sought to advise?
"KJK" was busy with her own issues.
Those supporting/facilitating her should have informed everyone of the situation and its potential. Imo.
The women referred to speaks for herself somewhere on Sean Plunket's programme – 3 parter.
So, if you go listen, you don't have to offer any reckons. You will know exactly what happened to her.
I would tell you what she said, but I may then have to find it in the three hours, so I'll just direct you to the original source and you can have a look for yourself.
Hi Robert…I get where you're coming from, but your concern for this 11-week pregnant woman is missing the point. She should have had no such concern. She should have been able to expect that trans activists could conduct a counter protest with dignity and respect, not acts of violence. She should have been able to expect that Green MP's would not inflame the situation with comments like they were 'So ready to fight Nazis’. And she should have expected that a co-leader of the Greens could do better than a cis-phobic, racist and sexist outburst.
Hi, Liberty Belle
You claim “this 11-week pregnant woman"should have had no such concern. She should have been able to expect that trans activists could conduct a counter protest with dignity and respect"
She should have believed the trans activists would meekly accept and benignly listen-to the rhetoric from Posie?
When an 11-week pregnant [woman] goes for a walk in the park or a meet up with the girls at the local garden centre, she should not have to don her Kevlar cardigan and carry her ultrasound with her next to the pepper spray in case a cactus carks it or a triffid (Triffidus celestus) gets testy.
Because that's what adults do in a liberal democracy.
"She should have believed the trans activists would meekly accept and benignly listen-to the rhetoric from Posie? Really? Why??"
Watch the video(s) Molly posted. The part where the trans activists push through the barriers and start punching elderly people. 'Protest' then gives way to violent thuggery.
A mere, innocent "walk in the park"?
"A mere, innocent "walk in the park"?"
Trans activists attended an event in which a women's rights activist was going to address a crowd in a public domain. The trans activists broke through barriers, physically assaulted at least 2 elderly people, and generally behaved like a group of violent thugs.
And rather than condemn that behaviour, you are here asking why an 11-week pregnant woman had the audacity to attend the event.
You have this seriously wrong.
By Golly! She was 11 weeks pregnant and could walk in the park on her own two feet unassisted?? It’s miracle that her waters didn’t break and she didn’t go into labour when shit hit the fan.
You are seriously blowing this out of perspective.
I've not said she was audacious, as you pretend. I wonder why she misread the situation so badly; why she couldn't read the tea leaves, why she wasn't alerted to the threat, where others knew perfectly well that trouble was afoot – you truly reckon she was naive, an innocent abroad? Someone should have let her know that trouble was brewing, 'coz lots of people could see that it was.
It's not posie's responsibility, weka -she's busy enough, but if she knew, people knew. Someone told posie. "Someone" could have told the pregnant woman. If the situation was risky, why weren't at-risk people informed?
Your answers are here in the three hour show:
Told her what? that the protest would become a mob and people in the wrong places would be in serious danger. I've already explained that no-one knew that was going to happen. They thought the police were going to be there to keep the peace, because that's the norm in NZ and they have been told the police would be there.
If you think that KJK and by extension the organisers did know what the risk was, please provide some evidence now, because we've been over this a number of times.
"no-one knew that was going to happen…"
Sure. But wise heads could predict what might happen, easily.
"you truly reckon she was naive, an innocent abroad?"
Never said that or implied it. But your arguments are sounding increasingly like 'she shouldn't have gone out dressed like that'.
The 11 week pregnant women should have the expection that she is safe to attend a public event and speak. She had an piece she wanted to read out. We have been prevented from hearing that.
The pregnant women had been informed of the potential that there would be a lot of noise. REmember the violence and aggression directed as Posie hasn't happened before at any of her rallies. That is what #shameonNewZealand and #NewZealandhateswomen have been trending.
The pregnant woman thought the police would step up and keep the peace, but they were no where to be seen. I don’t know what would have happened to her if not for the camera man. Disgraceful
"REmember the violence and aggression directed as Posie hasn't happened before at any of her rallies."
She has rallies?
So, Australia was a cake walk???
Not at all.
But ironically, despite the presence of actual NeoNazis in Melbourne – and a few other unconnected protest groups – women were still able to speak.
However, in Auckland with the organised presence of the rainbow community and their allies- they were unable to.
While this has happened before in the USA, in this case, our trans-Tasman neighbours have shown us up, NeoNazis and all.
"The 11 week pregnant women should have the expection that she is safe to attend a public event and speak."
You are joking, right?
What are you saying here?
A person, wishing to speak at any event in a series, would be wise to look to how previous events unfolded, especially if there were issues of safety previously. Yes?
I've already explained this extensively.
Some of us following closely knew there was an increased risk compared to previous events, but not that there would be a mob. The general public wouldn't have known about that increased risk or the mob. And yes, in NZ, up until Saturday, there was an expectation that people could attend such an event and be relatively safe. Certainly they could have stood over to the side and watched just like any person who happened to be passing by the event.
weka said, "Some of us following closely knew there was an increased risk …"
So why wasn't that shared, given the potential?
Molly said: "While this has happened before in the USA"
Lots of things have happened in the USA, Robert.
People have expectations of their own country, linked to their own society, culture and experience.
Keen had police officers escorting her through crowds due to incidents of violence at her Chicago rally. Her Tacoma rally wasn't exactly peaceful, her Portland rally was cancelled due to threats and security for her Austin rally was provided by members of an FBI designated extremist militia .
Thank you, joe90
"I have always been deeply suspious of Counterspin, but having watched the interview of Marama, I have to say it was an excellent piece of reporting."
Further reflection on your telling statement; you've always been deeply suspicious, but suddenly, with this issue, you've changed your opinion to greatly impressed; do you not wonder at this strange turn of events? No alarm bells ringing for you?
No Robert. I don't. I saw the Marama interview before I realized the source. It was posted on the Standard.
Given it is a video, unless it is a deepfake one, I don't know why the source is so relevant.
Ministers should be "sensible", even if they've been traumatised by *some event"?
*hit by motorcycle on pedestrian crossing
"what point has he missed?"
Don't take sides in a political dispute between a woman's rights group and an LGBTQ+ rights group, by saying you would have liked to attend if your schedule allowed, after you know a bunch of violence occurred there. I had credited Chris with better political smarts myself in most circumstances.
fuck, I didn't know he said afterwards he wanted to attend.
I almost feel sorry for him, because No Debate is a feeding frenzy on people that get it wrong. I'm not sure if the genderists would be stupid enough to take down a Labour leader in an election though, so I'm going to assume this is also about his own personal beliefs (terfs are nazis, don't have to think about them as women)
"But on Tuesday the Prime Minister said if his schedule had allowed, he would have joined the protest."
I would think some of the counter-protest were involved in running the Police out of pride previously, so who knows what they are capable of regarding the PM.
"But on Tuesday the Prime Minister said if his schedule had allowed, he would have joined the protest."
Lets put that into its correct context:
From the link you provide he actually said:
Perfectly reasonable comment to make. If I wasn't old and arthritic I might have attended too for the same reason. I have a close relative who is a member of the rainbow community. I would not have acted aggressively or abused anyone and in reality the majority of the protesters didn't either. Sure, they were loud but that was a tactic to drown out the trans and homophobia that is being slyly promoted by the speaker. She never got the chance on this occasion and I welcome that outcome.
Agreed Anne and thank you.
I hadn't even attributed which protest side I would have expected him to go to myself there.
We will have to agree that it a good thing words have limited ability to harm of course, otherwise we would be seeing people getting beaten all over the common wealth in the wake of KJKs trip across the common wealth. I'm surprised she is allowed on a plane given the risk she might say something while on board.
Booking and boarding an international flight last-minute and being allocated an aisle seat is hardly equivalent to a well-announced if not Trumped-up public speaking appearance with a full security team to shield you – the one is an airplane seat, the other is a platform.
Really, well you learn something every day.
That you can book & board a flight to anywhere at the last minute, even in this day and age, as long as you have a credit card?
unrelated but fyi, https://thestandard.org.nz/open-mike-29-03-2023/#comment-1942260
Troublesome because there clearly is missing context and the allegation/generalising anecdata to “our youth rainbow [‘supposed’] support organisations”. As such, it is essentially innuendo and smearing to suit /propagate a narrative. Some commenters here could do with better, higher quality, verifiable supporting material to argue their points rather than to score points. Debate is not a point-scoring competition unless it is a debating competition.
It was context to the source of the article that was linked.
The comment related to the denial of any sexual orientation – including homosexuality – in the article.
It was a response to Visubvera's comment about homophobia, giving an example of what is being distributed:
"Today's trans rights advocates hold the belief that the very words "same sex attracted" are nothing but a "transphobic dog whistle.""
It was not a breakdown of each and every rainbow support organisation in NZ, it was never intended as such.
The missing context was in relation to your troublesome commentary and the apparent history with the NZ psychotherapist, just on Twitter, I assume.
This is an attempt at deflection or you’re having trouble parsing my comment. My observation was that you were generalising, not breaking down. If you did not intend to generalise, which is almost impossible to believe, given your final sentence in that comment of yours, and given that you mentioned “our/their […] support organisations” [twice, plural] and “professional therapists” [plural], then you did an appalling job of writing what you meant. Perhaps you were in shock?
No, just obviously clumsy in giving context to the origin of the link.
Deflection it is then.
"Deflection it is then"
No. Just not up to par with your expectations.
But I notice you demonstrate deflection quite often, so I cede you will be more familiar with it than I.
Chris Hipkins either believes that terfs are nazis, or he knows that the protest was designed to stop women talking about their sex based rights and is ignoring that. Neither position is tenable for a PM.
Or, he wanted to attend respectfully, to show our Government's willingness to listen.
that's not what he said. From the link above,
"Conceptually, I would've had no issue with being there. It would've been something I would've been proud to support."
I don't see the words, "rainbow community" – even if he meant that, he wasn't saying, "the heated-up trans-supportive community", was he.
He might have been saying he supported the whole dialogue, had it been a positive one.
Edit: Incognito said: “Hipkins said he supported the “significant number” of trans rights counter-protesters who did not use violence.
“That was about supporting fellow New Zealanders and I think that is something we should celebrate.
“As I’ve said, I’ll never support people who resort to violence,” he said.
Sorry Anne but you cannot support gender ideology and same sex attracted people. The interests of the two are antipathetic. Gender ideology (the belief that people have an innate gender identity that supersedes biological reality) denies the very existence of same sex attraction. Homosexual has been redefined to "people who are attracted to the same gender" rather than the "same sex".
As a lesbian, I am same sex attracted. To say that people like me should be available for the sexual advances of male bodied people who utter the magic words "I identify as a woman" is homophobic and supports rape culture.
It was not a problem 50 years or so ago when trans people were gay or lesbian, but but is a problem now when many are straight.
Today's trans rights advocates hold the belief that the very words "same sex attracted" are nothing but a "transphobic dog whistle."
Thank you visubversa. I don't think many realise the message that is currently being given to our young gay men, or lesbians by their supposed support organisations.
I got into an exchange with a NZ psychotherapist who works in our youth rainbow support organisations.
I asked him this after he entered a Twitter conversation:
His belated reply after disappearing for a while, and retweeting me without answering:
If you do read it, it is repetitious variations on the theme that if you adhere to a fixed form of the protected characteristic of SEXUAL-orientation, you are both bigoted and transphobic.
THIS is the advice given to young lesbians and gay men by professional therapists who approach them for support in coming to terms with their emerging sexuality.
I find it appallingly regressive and harmful.
can you please explain to me why, when you've been told repeatedly that any quote has to have a link, you just put up two quotes without links? I'd really like to understand this. It's not just you, but I'm hoping you can tell me what is going on because I am at a complete loss as to why this keeps happening.
This time it was because I didn't want to put the psychiatrist's name out there without permission – unless it was truly necessary.
I thought as a first hand account of a conversation I had had, this would be unnecessary.
Is it – as a first hand account – necessary?
I have linked to the article the provided, which is the item that provides the argument that I referred to.
Are you asking me to show evidence that I had a conversation before the article was given, even though it is a first-hand account?
Here’s the logic flow, in two parts:
Before any other considerations, those are the ground rules. It doesn’t matter what you think the rationales are for that, they’re still the rules.
I'm trying to think of a work-around that still follows your guidelines, but allows me to post the article.
Would you be able to replace the quote bits with this:
I had a conversation with a NZ psychotherapist who works for rainbow support organisations. When I asked him about what information he gave to young women who are lesbians who may be asked to consider transwomen as intimate partners, he referred me to this article:
Would that be satisfactory?
unlinked quotes deleted.
Because it was his profession I didn't want to link in case, he had changed his mind, or was being facetious because he was annoyed on Twitter.
I added my quote in, and then thought it didn't make sense without his, but could have just rewritten it without either. (SHOULD have.)
As I said above I think PM has been badly advised. I don't think this is a time for personal views. The current time is about views appropriate the the holder of the position of PM.
I think PM could counter the bad impression left by his views.
TBH I am not the slightest bit interested in his views but in this case, as in the cancellation off PP it has let more anti women's rights cats out of the bag than would have I thought. And that is a good thing/
PM should be reflective of the fact that he speaks for all NZers, not just ones of a certain political view.
His statement could have been much more measured. He needn't have mentioned trans, just said violence to pro women rights people is to be condemned.
But too late now.
That sounds a little drastic and leaves no room for natural justice or correction.
Very nuanced & measured comments yet clear as day and unequivocally anti-violence, any [form of] violence. Full stop.
His statement is focused on the trans people. This was not some happy day organised for trans rights activists to be there.
He said if his schedule had permitted he would have been there too. I don't have to contort my thinking too much to think that he would not have been joining the small blonde 55 year old, 35year old pregnant woman and the 70 year woman who deliberately bashed herself in the eye with a Rainbow person's fist/placard.
This was an event organised so women/females call them what you will could meet. listen to KJM and to listen to other women. it was not an event for the trans community. Though if they had listened respectfully at a distance and both parties were separated by Police on the look out for breaches of the peace it could have gone ahead.
The whole shemozzle seems to read that the trans people were there just minding their own business, and up came a small 55 year old, the 70 year old and the pregnant 35 year old & others we have not heard from, and set about disrupting it.
I am suggesting that all he needed to do was follow the example of one of the ministers in the UK govt who condemned the violence shown towards one of its citizens. (I have linked to this before)
I think you are drawing a long bow to say that a PM saying that violence against PP was unacceptable would breach the natural justice rights of someone who is perhaps facing violence charges. What on earth will the defence be, that violence is justified in cases where it involves PP & 70 year olds running into Rainbow fists or placards.
Not in those two links that I provided unless you’re projecting or ascribing an esoteric or achaic meaning to the word “focused” that I’m unfamiliar with.
In other words, no natural justice for the PM or Davidson for that matter, from you.
Again, thanks, Incognito.
I give up. I'm now to give people such as the PM or Davidson natural justice, which is a specific legal term that I am used to in admin law.
Surely you mean benefit of the doubt?
The state of accepting something/someone as honest or deserving of trust even though there are doubts.
I am not about to give someone natural justice, I am not sure I can in any case. Neither of them could be bothered informing themselves of the issues that KJM might discuss, easily found by looking at the writeups from each event.
Perhaps I might give them the benefit of the doubt but then the state has many more resources at its fingertips than I do and many more chances to get the correct info.
Are you asking me to be magnanimous on the basis that we all make mistakes?
You know as someone who worked 4.5 years with two Ministers (labour/national) I have a fair idea of how the system is supposed to work. It grieves me all these unforced errors, and personal takes being elevated as OK. The playing around with women's rights/issues.
As a person I have to draw the line
1 Hipkins was far too late and far too wishy washy. All he needed to say was paraphrased the UK model, added a bit about protest being good but having boundaries and he was away.
Oversharing and who cares about whether he would have gone, no clarity of which side he would have supported had he gone
2 Davidson was hopeless all round. Personal stuff, OTT over sharing, mistakes of fact in relation to her portfolio
I don't believe I have to give either the benefit of the doubt over their handling of this issue. I am happy to give a big black mark and move on.
I'm highly unlikely to ever vote Greens again.
Labour seems to be 'tired' (perhaps that is why they are making these mistakes?).
I feel very let down that they do not value their female constituency,.
"it was not an event for the trans community"
Were they not welcomed to attend?
It was an event for Women run by KJM who is a women's right activist. She had organised this so women could hear from her and so women who wanted to speak could. They could talk about concerns with the erasure etc of the word woman or on other issues. If you read the lists of topics spoken about in other cities they are quite varied.
The anti women activists were hell bent on not allowing this to take place. That is why they broke down the barricades and swarmed the band rotunda.
I am not sure that welcoming them would have had impact at all or why they needed to have been welcomed. or did you mean that PP could have yelled out 'hey tree people' as they did at Woodstock to greet all the ones who sat in trees listening but not paying the Woodstock entry.
The usual way would be for there to have been police circling the band rotunda and then policing the barricades. Between the band rotunda the people wanting t hear from KJM would have stood.
On the other side of the barricades/police lines would have stood the protestors. They would have been welcome to listen.
It seems to be getting a bit slanted as if it was the right of the protestors to be up there in your face, threatening and hurting people as though it was the women who were trespassing.
The event was the women's event. The protestors 'gate crashed' or protested although usually there are police on hand to ensure that breaches of the peace are minimised. Of course with the police absent on 25/3 this could not occur.
Is there any reason you are asking these one line questions that do not seem to acknowledge in the replies the thoughts that many have given you. By this I am meaning you do not seem to be informing yourself, or at least this is not evidenced in your replies/questions.
Most of the issues have been canvassed here over the last week and then over many threads, many lead by Weka over the last couple of years. The No Debate BDM bill/now Act was the initiator of the madness
What would it take for 'the madness' to pass, if that's what Keen-Minshull and her supporters want? Repeal the contentious changes to the BDM Act, before they come into effect? Or would strengthening protections so that the (new) rights/provisions didn't compromise sex-based rights (if that's possible) be sufficient?
The increasing tendency of (some) protesters to use violence is alarming. If only the clock could be wound back to before the 'anti-mandate'/anti-Government protests, and then a greater effort made to encourage respectful, peaceful protest. Hope that ship hasn't sailed in NZ (or anywhere), but what to do personally?
I'd be in favour of better management/policing of, and surveillance at potentially contentious events, plus stronger penalties for those who incite hate and/or perpetrate violence – Kiwis don't need it, imho.
@Drowsy M. Kram
Your provided links don't seem to match up, or be supporting of your comments. Is this intentional?
@Molly – thanks for your feedback/question.
In my comment (@1:39 am), I asked three questions about how NZ might get past the recent "madness" – my take being the 'madness' relates to the process/progress of NZ's "No Debate BDM bill/now Act", and the both national and global 'culture wars' that led to the deplorable violence that shut down last weekend's LWS event, part of Keen-Minshull's tour beneath the slogan "2023 is the year of the TERF".
I then offered six links (spanning ~50 years) relating to similarly contentious 'progress' (or not, depending on one's beliefs and/or PoV) on the rights of a minority community in NZ. Some of points I was trying to make with these links are:
Progressive change may take time.
Change may require (ideally respectful, peaceful) protest.
Years after change, e.g. apartheid in SA, some will have moved on.
Progressive change can be vulnerable to reversal even decades later.
I then continued by lamenting what seems to be a (recent?) trend towards violent protest in NZ ("This country's fucked."), and ended with a quote about Keen-Minshull announcing her intention to form her own political party and take on Labour leader Starmer.
@Drowsy M. Kram
Thanks, I appreciate your comprehensive response.
I can see some of what you are saying now, but the connections seem to broad and generalised to give insight onto the current situation for me.
It may however lead to further explorations of those points which I will watch and read with interest.
He wanted to attend. That doesn't indicate his bias toward any faction, does it?
The fence was removed so I don't know where he was planning on sitting though.
He wasn’t planning to sit anywhere, he was going to stand on the sideline.
There weren't very many sidelines, it was surging mass/mess especially if you had wanted to hear any of the women speaking ie up near the front. .
If there were sidelines I sure he would have found – one if not just to practice putting his left foot in & out and twirling all about just so that he did not have to deal with anything too deep and so he did not have to look at who was promulgating the violence Sarc/
I wish we had a sarcasm emoji.
I some how have my doubts he would be up with PP, and her supporters.
At Hobart there were some older men supporting or standing with PP & the women who were gathered to speak. In the absence of police there I saw one of them carefully and slowly move several trans activists from the area where PP & the women were.
And I thought Hobart policing was bad. So bad I wrote to SUFW to ask that they speak to the Police, even though they were not the actual organisers, to make sure that they had more competent policing here in NZ.
I felt that the Police should be around PP, that separations between people wanting to listen to PP and the protestors should have been enforced and that Police should not have allowed the crowd to push forward to surround. I also did not want elderly folk being the ones to have to intervene to get anti women people away from crowding her from behind.
Of course in Hobart they could not do this as they had opted to under Police.so had little hope of enforcing crowd control. I had hoped NZ would be better.
I guess if the NZ Police got any message they decided 'competent' meant 'absent'.
Robert this was not a good natured protest where everyone kept their distance and the speaker could speak with witty good natured heckling. Far from it. This crowd was determined that PP & the women who had come there would not be allowed to speak and they were anything but good natured about it.
Like to attend, seeking to understand?
Or do you prefer that politicians stay away because, awkward?
This is where a word like ‘sensible’ ‘commonsense’ would have been better from you Robert. I would have worded it
Or do you prefer that politicians stay away because, sensible?
to which I would have answered ‘yes’
Because I am not in the least bit interested in the personal views of Ministers between elections especially except when a conscience vote is called in Parliament
At election time I am very interested in personal views, allies, etc as that lets me determine whether their views align with mine or they belong to a party whose views align with mine.
If Hipkins & Davidson wanted a shot at being re-elected then staying away because awkward was the only option. If you turn up, your not going to be able to stay out of being associated with one side or the other in some way.
Regardless of what I prefer my bet would be on a substantial drop in the polls for Labour and the Greens and election loss later in the year. That's mostly due to their voting demographics skewing female.
I bet that won't happen. Small bubble, no effect. Imo.
This is what I mean when I say Women's iisues……one of the many.
From the Group fighting for pay equity between and women "Mind your gap"
'She (Jo Cribb) wanted every company that employed more than 50 people to report on the gender pay gap in their organisation.
According to Stats NZ, women are paid on average 9% less than men. But the pay gap is worse for Māori and Pasifika women. Pasifika women are paid, on average, 25% less than the average Pākehā man.'
Perhaps this is a simpler item to do than apologising for PM & Davidson.
But I’m not holding my breath on either issue.
You can say goodbye to any accurate statistics on the sex pay gap once companies follow Stats NZ and prioritise recoding of "gender" over "sex". It does not take very many "Pip/Pippa" Bunces to skew the figures.
That's true. Though I did think that a transwoman bringing their pay rates & putting them in survey of female pay rates might skew them upward. Actually it wldn’t have worked, I wld just ignore them as an outlier
Often in the day & age when individual Employments contracts were the thing I did see, recording the stats, that many men were able to achieve higher starting salaries than women.
And that was despite a fierce female person advising my fellow managers to be careful and showing them articles stats on how males could do this. (to do with the whole interview situation often being so fraught for women that they will accept a low salary start point thrown at them by a man who expects there to be a bit of upward negotiation.) The ones I could catch I asked that their Managers offer 3monthly reviews to get them up.
Women just did not do salary negotiations like that in those days. It may not have changed very much.
Tell me your boomer readership demographic is heavily, heavily invested in Wayne Brown without telling me your boomer readership demographic is heavily, heavily invested in Wayne Brown…
Shayne Currie, no less, writes a hagiography of the mayor whilst other media are not so sure.
It is paywalled BTW – if anyone sees it popping up on reddit or somewhere please link!.
March 21, 2023, Chris Hipkins tells TV1 presenter Matt McLean that he had cancelled the climate change mitigation measures the week before so he could focus on the cost of living crisis.
Here's his chance to make a start.
This strike just might help Chris Hipkins sharpen his 'focus'.
….the pay was “just not sustainable”
This statement alone should help Chris Hipkins focus on the cost of living crisis in the Education Sector at the least.
This morning on Morning Report, the spokesman for PPTA said that the Principals were over-whelmed with 25 "changes" to schools. 25? Wonder what they would be.
I assume you’re referring to this segment:
There’s also a written piece (of course):
As TS contributors will be aware, the Moana child custody case seems to have reached finality. The European couple who cared for the girl for some years have decided to return her to the care of the state.
The people who are to look after her welfare in future may be fine, but the child's experience of life so far has been extremely disruptive. However, the case has been useful by illuminating the following two disturbing matters:
* the slyness, deceitfulness and falsehoods of the Oranga Tamariki staff who purported to be acting in the child's best interests.
* the willingness of certain members of the NZ judiciary to interfere in on-going Family Court proceedings when they had no right whatever to do so, in effect creating a Kangaroo court.
The knowledge that such actions will be exposed may prevent a repeat performance.
Hunter Thompson 100 %
Remember, practical reality must never trump political ideology. This is why we keep doing the same things, getting the same results and never changing, & blaming the other people who are not responsible.
please fix your email address on next comment, you got caught in the Spam filter.
TBH – I think that the withdrawal of the case by the foster-family of Moana will have emboldened OT, and their radical supporters.
They already think they are right. Being told by the judiciary that they are wrong, simply makes them think that the judiciary is out of touch.
Actual penalties imposed on the offending staff would have gone some way to persuading them that their blatantly illegal and unfair actions would not be tolerated. However this hasn't happened (and probably would never happen, since they can hide behind their employment status).
The behaviour of certain members of the judiciary was utterly disgraceful – and they should have resigned. Again, not going to happen. Judges virtually never admit wrongdoing…. And there are no meaningful sanctions which society can impose on them. Above the law….
This will have reinforced the principle (already well known to litigious activists) of appeal, appeal, appeal – drag out the case for as long as possible (on legal aid, of course) to wear down the opposition.
It seems to me that those speaking up for women's rights are just protesting to preserve what would have been accepted as completely normal not so many years ago.
I think the media has been discraceful in its attempt to portray this as some sort of anti-trans, Nazi type of radical protest movement.
I think if mainstream kiwis understood the truth of the matter, there would be widespread support from both females and males. Many of us males have daughters we are very concerned for, as well as female partners etc.
I think the message about the issues needs to be framed in terms that average kiwis can understand, such as females being entitled to privacy in changing rooms etc. The problem is how to get this message across through a very biased media that controls the message.
Tsmithfield, I think you’re right. I also feel uncomfortable about the number of men who are shouting down the women concerned.
There seems to be an increasing level of misogyny directed at women who don’t toe the line. And that line seems to be drawn by men or transgender women.
I had dinner with family over the weekend. My nephew who’s gay and his boyfriend were very supportive of the violence directed at the women, and saw nothing wrong with it.
My niece was very quick to add that she wasn’t a feminist, to the nodding approval of her boyfriend.
I was appalled at what I felt were misogynistic attitudes towards women, from my nephews boyfriend, so I let him know that in my family we did not speak about women the way he had.
As you can guess, I was subjected to all manner of vitriolic abuse, it was extraordinary this guy was completely un hinged.
I spoke with my niece the next day, she’s really upset. In her words she says that she has to act a certain way and to have certain opinions or face the disapproval of straight men, gay men, & now transgender women.
Terry, welcome to a club you never wanted to join. When you challenge these extremists, thats what the do. They have a no debate stand, the smear and vilify you and then they cancel you.
Its their playbook
TSmithfield Posie's visit achieved two things.
1. It shows what happens when women are determined to speak up about their rights, they are treated with smears, vilification and violence by the trans rights activists. This is even when many of these women are older aged lesbians who were instrumental in the fight for lesbian rights in years gone by.
2. NZ has had a glimpse of what an authoritarian, anti women movement the Rainbow has become at the extreme end.
The result has been that Speak up for women has been flooded with women who want to join. Please feel free to visit their website and sign up for their newsletter, if you are concerned for the women in your life.
I feel there has been some mislabelling with TERF I suggest it should be Penis Exclusory Radical Females – PERF. I also wish to state that for the most part the trans point of view versus women is just bonkers in my old white hetero male opinion
Love it Barfly! PERF…….its perfect. And thanks for your support.
In fact thanks to all this men on this site who support us. Much appreciated
The Nashville mass shooter who killed three nine year old children and three teachers has been identified as being trans gender.
What would Posie Parker and her supporters have have made of this, if she had been allowed a platform in this country?
Would they have used these horrific murders by a transgender person as an opportunity to further their hate campaign against transgender people?
What could the result have been?
[if you want to run an argument that KJK and/or her supporters have a “hate campaign against transgender people”, please provide evidence. Usual thing, your argument, quotes, links and timestamps if needed. Please do this before commenting again – weka]
Well I’d point out that the shooter was definitely NOT a woman.
Maybe this poses another question, if a adult transgender woman can go into a school and kill children and teachers. Something that everyone, especially women, would find way beyond abhorrent. Are transgender women really women?
I have had a quick check, of all school shootings in the USA, ALL OF THEM, have been carried out by teenage boys or adult males. There is one exception, late 70’s when a very disturbed teenage girl shot up a school. Immortalised in the Boomtown Rats song I don’t like Mondays.
But anyway we ALL know transgender women are not REAL women, women sure, but still part male. But we just won’t say so, because we are being polite and respectful. And also because we don’t want the abuse.
I have seen myself violence from transgender women, and it’s exactly the same as male violence. My wife and daughters were threatened with rape by a transgender woman and her gender queer friend. A friend of mine was mugged and robbed by a couple of transgender women late one night in Wellington. So maybe it’s time to really have an honest discussion.
Various media is making mistakes in how they are reporting it.
It seems clear that the shooter was a young woman – who had recently claimed a male identity.
I'll try and find the article that made this clear. It had a statement from her mother.
Although, the statements about incidents of violence are off-this-particular-topic, I think it is fair and accurate to say that men do not reduce the sex-based risk factor for violence, with a gender identity.
However, the risk-factor for women taking exogeneous testosterone increases the likelihood of aggression and violence. There are also (unconfirmed) reports that she was on a form of anti-psychotics.
Bugger, I didn't bookmark it, so I just put "Audrey Hale mother" in Google and got this New York Post article, which confirms that the shooter was female:
The shooter was a woman??
…she was drinking testosterone???
Am I reading you right, Molly?
"Am I reading you right, Molly?"
I suspect your reading comprehension is getting worse by the day, Robert.
So, Molly, Posie has gone and we are left squabbling… do you think there is method in that?
I agree or disagree depending on what you say.
Not because of the presence or absence of a third person.
Well it has been an interesting development as we see just who does support women's rights and issues and those who feel the rights of trans people should be given precedence.
Because of that it has been of inestimable benefit to many women to know this.
I think many women felt that the 'fight' for women's rights may have been needed less and less. Not so.
We can never rest, our rights as women are under continual threat.
We just have to view 25/3 and then to read the latest on pay equity to know that much is still to be done.
It is ironic because many women I know supported some trans issues, and still do, as we knew what it was like to be excluded etc.
#Let Women speak
#Speak up for Women
#The whole world is watching
"It seems clear that the shooter was a young woman …"
I've posted links Robert. Have you not looked into it yourself?
"Well I’d point out that the shooter was definitely NOT a woman…." Terry
"….we ALL know transgender women are not REAL women, women sure, but still part male." Terry
A kneejerk reaction and Jumping to conclusions that Audrey Hale was male identifying as female, and not the other way round, and isolated and hearsay stories of assault that back your confirmation bias, is not being honest. It is just airing your prejudice.
Exactly the sort of thing we need to guard against.
We ALL know where PREJUDICE leads.
Bit too quick, sport.
It's been reported inaccurately by few news sites.
The police chief also mixed the usual terms in the comment I posted below:
There is no such thing as a woman these days joe; and the only reason why men still exist is so everything can be blamed on them.
"Well I’d point out that the shooter was definitely NOT a woman."
You are welcome to have a look at Kellie-Jay Keen's posts and videos since this incident occurred to see what she personally has made of it:
Twitter account: https://twitter.com/ThePosieParker
Given that many here are supporter of letting women speak, and have known about this since it occurred a couple of days and haven't posted – I guess you have your answer.
My reason for not posting (if you want to know) are:
1. Not enough details have been provided to be able to give any sort of political analysis. It was reported that a manifesto had been left, which has not been released, and that the person was a young woman with autism as well as a transgender identity. There is a historic sexual abuse history at this school, which she was a former student of. It is also reported she was on anti-psychotic drugs, which may or may not be true. Any – or none – of these may be a factor in this terrible incident.
But now that you've asked the question, I'd appreciate your answer to these two questions:
1. What do you make of this incident?
2. What was the intention or point of your comment?
Thread (with links to sources) here about the historic sex abuse at the school, if anyone wants to add some background knowledge, or check what has been provided:
Short excerpt of the local police chief after the incident. He also in unsure about the current language use in regards to transwomen and transgender:
It seems my comments are in moderation.
For the so called defenders of free speech for Posie. It seems free speech is only for hate speech mongers but not their critics.
No, the reason you were modded is because you appear to believe that in the middle of a major political upheaval you can just post your evidence-free reckons on TS and take an a priori position that people who support KJK are part of a hate campaign against trans people.
You know that you can't do that, so please don't take potshots at mods.
The irony here is that your commenting style on TS is quite similar to KJK's rhetorical style.
In other words, unnecessarily aggressive and polemic?
" that in the middle of a major political upheaval you can just post your evidence-free reckons on TS "
Jenny is free to say "I think KJK is a transphobe". Or "I think KJK is anti-trans". Someone might ask her why she thinks that, but it's basically her opinion.
If she says "KJK and her supporters are running a hate campaign against trans people, and will probably use the mass murder by a trans man to further that campaign", there are some problems.
Of course, this is the point of the accusation of nazi/terf/bigot, it's propaganda to make if very hard for gender critical people to talk about the issues. But it's not how we debate here on TS.
No Debate was an intentional strategy started in the UK and taken up by genderist liberals who enforced it. Women and men, including often on the left, lost their jobs, careers, social connections, and were subjected to doxing, malicious police reporting, violent rhetoric and abuse when they stood up and said, hang on a minute, we support trans people and we'd like to talk about women's sex based rights and the protection of children. Many more people have been afraid to speak
One current form of No Debate is to call GCFs terf nazis and refuse to engage on the issues of women's rights and child safeguarding. Fortunately on TS, you can't do that, you have to bring an argument to the table and back it up when asked.
Here's the tomato sauce protestor,
That's a supposedly progressive male in NZ calling women cunts. 2.5K likes.
We know that there were signs on Saturday saying things like 'suck my dick'. To women wanting to talk about their sex based rights.
Now look at these to see where we might be going,
If I were acting like the anti-terfs, or even Jenny, I would be within my rights to say that Jenny and you are part of a movement that calls women cunts and tells them to choke on girl dick, which makes you both extreme misogynists.
But that would be stupid, because you're both obviously not that. Likewise, all KJK supporters are not running an anti-trans campaign and would use the trans man murderer as part of that. We have standards here, around reality and how we can talk about it. This matters all the time, but it matters especially at the moment.
Here's more. This is the narrative being established.
Eli Rubashkyn is now claiming that she is going in terror of being arrested.
[NB: I am using her apparently preferred pronoun, not making a determination of her gender – both 'her' and 'they' are used in the article]
While I don't condone death threats (and any should be reported to the appropriate authorities) – her intemperate language and behaviour is certainly inflaming the situation.
Her language and attitude, in the above tweet, suggests that her reported 'fears' bear little resemblance to reality. Another piece of PR or straight-out propaganda.
The police have denied any attempt to arrest her. And, the language of their investigation suggests that they are following up the physical assault on the elderly women, rather than a rather over-dramatic (but ultimately harmless) piece of protest theatre.
Eliana looks like they deleted their account after an 8 hour twitter space live recording.
Here is the end of a thread of some of their recent postings including reference to the police contact:
I thought the person (ER) was born intersex and identifies as female or they?
fair point. Had a read of their wikipedia page now. Don'tknow if they were socialised male or not. Nor how their gender intersects with their DSD.
taking off my mod explainer hat, and putting on my GCF hat, it's worth noting the difference between trans people and transgenderism/gender identity ideology.
This second tweet is the latter. It's what many GCFs and other GC women, including KJK, are pushing back against. It's a form of colonisation of femaleness, done through a male lens. I would change the last word in the tweet to gender identity ideology.
That Posie Parker is not a hate monger is a minority position.
You want links?
Most New Zealanders don't support this kind of fascist style hate. A fair number of New Zealanders were prepared to go out of their way to make it clear they don't. Way, way more than the tiny minority who did turn up to support this hate monger.
Please explain how each of these are part of a hate campaign against trans people and provide back up as per usual.
I'd also like you to explain how KJK is a fascist.
I'm not asking you to do this because I disagree (I agree with some and disagree with others), but because your comments here don't reach the standard of debate required. I want you to slow down and explain your thinking and back up claims of fact, rather than just tossing out reckons as if they're givens.
eg you've quoted Michael Wood's opinion that her views are "inflammatory, vile and incorrect", but neither you nor he have said how
you've claimed that she has taken aim at migrant communities, but haven't given direct evidence of that.
yes, you are in premod. None of your comments will appear until you meet the conditions of the mod note above.
I'm a cis white male. I certainly don't want Marama Davidson to apologise to me as part of that group. It would be repeating the same error she made initially – a lack of discrimination. i.e. treating a group of people as homogenous, when they are not (and she would be apologising to both violent cis white males, and non-violent cis white males, as if they were all the same).
What I would like to see is her acknowledge the error in her statement (and we all say stupid things from time to time) and confirm that assigning virtue (or lack of) to people according to their race / sex / orientation is not the way to go – which I expect might be what she actually thinks (I hope!). So far she has not actually discussed what was wrong about what she said, unless I have missed it.
"What I would like to see is her acknowledge the error in her statement (and we all say stupid things from time to time)"
Could you reprint her apology please……she got up and waffled away in Parliament and then the PM said she had apologised to him.
On Twitter last night there were people who had searched for an apology per press release from her on Parliament website that has press releases on it. They could not see it. Perhaps you will be able to find it and link it, please.
Has she back tracked on sidelining the violence that happened at Mt Albert park?
She acknowledged her error, she did not apologise.
Why should she?
The contortions performed to defend the indefensible are something to behold.
Who needs Cirque du Soleil when there is Cirque du Standard
Not to mention Cirque du Media and Cirque du Parliament
We have the circuses, but where is our cake??
Nah, she lost it a long time ago.
Diminutive women and mobs.
Its bread and circuses
Women stood outside NZ Housein London, to read some of the statements NZ women were unable to give on the weekend at the #Let Women Speak events:
Question Time today:
Minister of Justice being questioned by Goldsmith with a grim pointing at Marama.. James Shaw slipped in a question:
"Does she think that people with a history of violence should be Members of Parliament?"
Greeted with silence and dismissed by the Speaker. Couldn't see the face of Uffendale.
Question 7 from 3:19m
I've just started to watch this. Some powerful things being said. People trying hard to get our Te Reo words correctly. Good on them.
All thanks to them. The feed at the side was going like crazy in support.
I think had we been allowed to speak in NZ we would have heard some from the old NZ women's lib (as it was called back then) stagers around in what they now call 'second wave' feminism.
But we were not allowed to be heard.
I am still reeling from this, I feel cut adrift from my country seeing so many anti women people, and hearing much of what I call weasel words
'Weasel words" are a colloquial term for words or phrases used to avoid being forthright. Weasel words are used when the speaker wants to make it seem like they've given a clear answer to a question or made a direct statement, when actually they've said something inconclusive or vague"
It followed the link by Molly.
Molly's comment was @ 16, yours was @ 18
I followed her link and when I started writing my post was immediately below Molly's. That is why I did not repeat the link to the women in London that Molly had put up. Coming back I found that several posts were now directly under. I am having lots of difficulty still with the site. I clear history, caches & restart often to make it more responsive. I'm up to date with my virus checkers and latest in updates.
I made it clear when I posted Molly''s link again to people knew that is what my comments about the London people were referring to.
My comment in 18 refers to this You tube link above.
The reference to Te Reo was in ref to some of the speakers attempting to recognise Aotearoa.
The comment 'Terrible day' was in relation to the weather in London.
My ref to
was about the women being able to speak in a public place without anti women protestors drowning them out.
I was hoping to go in Wellington but anti women people in Akl had decided I was not to go.
Full incident of woman getting punched, now up:
This is the face of tolerance and acceptance, don't you know.
"Taonga" according to some.
Total bullshit, about good authority.
And you know this how?
The lack of policing there had to have come from the top. It surely wldn't have been Commr Akld deciding by themselves to not send police to Albert Park. Although I guess they could but it would be unwise not to discuss with higher authority bearing minds it is usual for police to be at protests against breaches of the peace.
A decision to allow the "TRA's to get suck in" hardly sounds like direction from police to other police. It's a claim from someone who states one man punching a woman is assault by the rainbow community – this is not a reasonable person.
Sorry I had not given any thought to TRAs part, I was just querying the good authority about more or less deserting Albert Park. This had to have come after discussion, surely.
If a women was punched, and several were by a man who was a member of the rainbow community then this is unhinged. I saw several attacks, the 70 year old who was going to be one of KJM's speakers, an older man either punched or shaken by a large transwomen who has been identified on social media, an older man attacked by a younger person. Some women also complained about someone in the protestors who spoke indecently to them as they came to the front to get to KJM.
Unless we go the line of agents provocateur the theme seems to be violence against people moving to the front to be with KJM's group or who were already there (the70 year old)
The security guard around KJM did grasp the tomato paste wielder around the waist to physically move them away from KJM. From what I know this is std practice as he would not have known in that glancing moment what the substance was and had to get her out of the way before she sprayed others..