- Date published:
2:13 pm, October 29th, 2014 - 182 comments
Categories: accountability, human rights, law, police - Tags: rape, rape culture, roast busters, women's rights
From The Herald:
Roast Busters case: No prosecutions
Police are to make an announcement this afternoon on Operation Clover, the investigation into the “Roast Busters” allegations.
The Herald understands the victim has been told that the alleged offenders will not be prosecuted due to a lack of evidence.
Police will release documents to media at 2pm, which will be embargoed until 3pm. …
Update: This has now been confirmed:
Police identified 35 young men as “persons of interest” during their investigation into the Roast Busters sex case but say they will not be laying charges as there is not a reasonable chance of getting a conviction.
Imagine if, 3 years ago, the police got a warrant to seek electronic evidence in the Roastbusters case. Like they did with that Hager guy.
— Russell Brown (@publicaddress) October 29, 2014
If the police won't act on the most publicised rape scandal in years, what the fuck do they do with everyday rape cases? Chillling.
— Morgan Godfery (@MorganGodfery) October 29, 2014
I’d expected that this would happen. No other reason it’d take so long to reach the courts.
Here’s the message I take from this sad, unsavoury situation: the justice system doesn’t take seriously the issue of sexual violence against women. Or against underage girls, even when they make a complaint.
And here’s the message for young men: you can do this stuff with impunity. What a message for them to take into adulthood, when they marry and raise families!
Yep and don’t forget one of the boys is the son of a policeman. It clearly needs an independent review.
Given some of the girls involved were under-age, if sex occurred then an offence has been committed. Seems the police have concluded that the girls lied, and/or believed a defence that the young men’s boast-posts were lies.
Either way the entire scenario brings the NZ Police into disrepute. It’s well beyond time for some sunlight to be let in through their dirty windows.
” Either way the entire scenario brings the NZ Police into disrepute. It’s well beyond time for some sunlight to be let in through their dirty windows. ”
Never going to happen under NACT, NZP have been doing as requested move on.
Unfortunately the plods in NZ are getting more and more reminiscent of the Keystone Cops. But this lot only want to drive fast shoot guns and try to look good. I Would be shocked if one actually attended a burglary or other property offence in under 3 days.
“Seems the police have concluded that the girls lied, and/or believed a defence that the young men’s boast-posts were lies.”
Third option, the police believe that that available evidence wouldn’t stand up in court.
Detective Inspector Karen Malthus said today that the decision not to charge came about due to a range of factors including “evidential tests under the Solicitor General’s prosecution guidelines”.
“These state that there must be a reasonable prospect of conviction for police to initiate a conviction.”
The question is on what basis would the evidence not stand up in court. What charges did the evidential tests relate to?
There were complaints of a breach of the law on sexual connection. Those accused of the breach cannot claim the sex was consensual if the girls were under the age of consent. Their only defence is to deny the sex took place – and to claim that their public posting about was just bragging.
If that was the case, the police must have weighed up who a jury would be more likely to believe – and came down on the side of two lads who a lot of people would happily have lynched when the story first broke a year ago.
Or am I missing something?
rape culture exists within the justice system, including police, prosecution and juries, just as it does within the wider culture. So, at a guess, I would say people in decision making positions decided the young women wouldn’t be believed, therefore a prosecution would be a waste of resources. When it comes down to she said/he said, he said trumps. We need a different system for prosecuting sexual assault cases.
I would also guess that the idea that many people (eg jurors) will think the boys were naughty but not criminal would affect the decision. Rape culture ignorance and prejudice runs deep.
Plus you only have to look at that despicable statement from the police about alcohol to guess that the young women would be blamed. See if you drink and flirt with a man, he has the right to have sex with you. To what extent the decision makers agree with that or instead think that that perception would exists amongst jurors I don’t know.
All that shit.
The police generally won’t charge for underage sex when the participants are relatively near in age. Otherwise there would be an endless parade of teenagers through the courts, often instigated by angry parents. The likelihood is only increased in cases of homosexual sex, where homophobic parents of 15 year olds would use the law to act out their moral vendettas on the 16-18 year olds they think have “corrupted” their kid.
Ultimately, the reason this case would be hard to convict is that the kinds of consensual activities that many teenagers engage in on a regular basis would make it easy for defence counsel to make what the Roastbusters did look normal, whether it was forced or not.
All of this hoo ha over rape culture ignores the fact that our society’s values of sexual freedom make rape cases harder to convict, because a rape can often be made by the defence to look sufficiently like a hook up to introduce reasonable doubt.
Here’s three good things.
1. A society that allows sexual freedom such that any sexual encounter between consenting adults is ipso facto deemed socially acceptable (or at least never worthy of punishment).
2. A justice system that requires proof beyond reasonable doubt for a criminal conviction.
3. A justice system where it is easy to prosecute all genuine sex crimes.
Difficulty: in our world it is impossible to have more than 2 of the 3, no matter how you try to spin it. Our society has chosen 1 and 2.
“All of this hoo ha over rape culture ignores the fact that our society’s values of sexual freedom make rape cases harder to convict, because a rape can often be made by the defence to look sufficiently like a hook up to introduce reasonable doubt.”
Bullshit. Go look at how rape was handled before the 60s and you will find that it wasn’t easier to convict then. Also consider that society at that time believed there was no such thing as rape in marriage. This is rape culture, please stop perpetuating it.
“Difficulty: in our world it is impossible to have more than 2 of the 3, no matter how you try to spin it. Our society has chosen 1 and 2.”
No, our society has chosen to believe men over women and to act from rape myths and societal attitudes towards rape rather than create just laws and processes to protect people from sexual assault. That we have 1 and 2 and not 3 is not a societal choice, it’s arisen out of very specific imbalances in how society allows privilege to some people and not others.
The problem here is that too many people, mostly men, are afraid that if women were given a say in how rape laws were written and prosecuted that the tables would be turned and that would mean we would lose the reasonable doubt aspect of a conviction (ie accused = guilty). This is a common reaction of classes of people when asked to give up their privilege, but it’s based on fear not on anything factually real. It also says that those men don’t trust women to be fair. Why is that?
Denial isn’t just a river in Egypt, I see.
When a jury is trying to determine consent, they have to consider what are common forms of consensual sexual behaviour. The 1960s has nothing to do with it – there were simply more types of bad attitude then than there are now. Nevertheless, if drunken hookups were extremely uncommon, juries would have an easier time prosecuting date rape, because it would be more obviously non consensual. You would have to be as thick as ten slices of toast bread not to understand that.
If you want to waste your time with adolescent conspiracy theories from the softer of the social sciences, please go ahead. It will do absolutely nothing to reduce sex crime or actually help people. The people who talk about rape culture are idiots, still hungover from silly 1970s theory. Radical feminism harms society’s ability to properly address sexual crime.
“The people who talk about rape culture are idiots, still hungover from silly 1970’s theory. Radical feminism harms society’s ability to properly address sexual crime”
What is your problem with the term rape culture?
What would you prefer to call the situation where victims have not been taken seriously, or childhood sexual abuse was covered up, where people like Bob Jones are able to write columns in the major newspaper blaming German tourists who were raped, because of what they were wearing?
How does “radical feminism harms society’s ability to properly address sexual crime?
How do you suggest society try and properly address sexual crime? Do you know of any countries where this is working?
You should be grateful I have asked you these reasonable questions Tom. I had to stop myself from writing some rather unflattering comments about you.
@ wekarawshark (184.108.40.206.1)
An accused prior to conviction is innocent.
Criminal convictions require a standard of “beyond reasonable doubt”
Long may these standards be maintained for determining guilt, and then allocating punishment.
Where is the evidence?
Does that evidence draw a conclusion of guilt, beyond reasonable doubt?
The place for belief is elsewhere.
I do not care whether men or women or the dog down the road are given a say in how rape laws are written. As long as those laws are written in exactly the same way as every single other law. That enshrines the right of the accused to be innocent until proven guilty, and to be given a fair trial.
Your language appears a little unclear above, and I therefore may be drawing a wrong conclusion, but I fear there is some implication above that you may consider some of the things I have written are simply a “privilege” for some particular crimes. I hope that I am mistaken in my interpretation of what you have said.
“Where is the evidence?
Does that evidence draw a conclusion of guilt, beyond reasonable doubt? ”
You are being a hypocrite brian. You want a high degree of integrity in application of the law but are misusing it in this case. The only way that the evidence in this case can be tested is if there is a prosecution in court. You have just said that they are innocent because there is not evidence beyond reasonable doubt, but you have no way of knowing that. It’s a self-serving and invalid argument.
You also appear to be putting up a false dichotomy: innocence until proven guilty vs justice for rape victims. Stop and ask yourself why you are so convinced that those things are mutually incompatible.
The reason we have rape laws and the prosecution processes we do (ie the ones that are grossly and overwhelmingly unfair to one class of people) is because men wrote those laws.
btw, the evidence shows that false accusations for sexual assault are lower than other crimes. You are perpetuating rape culture when you promote false accusation rates as high. Again, men need to stop being afraid that women will turn on them, and just trust us to be fair. This doesn’t mean there will never be a wrong conviction (we already have wrong convictions in our justice system), it means that we will have an equitably fair system for all humans.
That’s a good start…. 🙂
It’s just our law.
Everybody is innocent by law until proven guilty. Of course the moment a person commits a crime they are not innocent factually. But there is no way for Society to judge that until the Court process is complete.
Our justice system (and Labour Party policy) says that.
The Court case is about determining whether an accused is guilty or not guilty. And then determining punishment for the guilty.
I’m not sure whether this is “vs” justice for victims of any crime
Is there more you would like to see from the Court process? The Court cannot take away the Crime. Are you advocating tougher sentences or something else? Our Society can be quite cruel to victims of crime.
The Court process does not guarantee “truth” It does as good as it can do. There are different outcomes that can occur
(a) The factually guilty are found guilty Good
(b) The factually guilty are found not guilty Bad
(a) The factually innocent are found guilty Bad
(b) The factually innocent are found not guilty Good
Reforms of the Court process should consider changes that will reduce the number of verdicts I’ve labelled “bad” above.
I’m more interested in debating the merits of law reform, if you have some specific ideas, than perpetuate silly arguments about who wrote them.
I have not referred to this topic, You are putting up a strawman argument. Stop it. It’s a worthy debate in itself, but irrelevant to this particular discussion
I’m just simply cracking up with laughter. Is this a Tui advert? Or is this a quote from John Key? Trust me….. f.f.s. .
Why is there a need to simply trust women? Just make a case for law reform. I respect law reform proposals by both men and women. And both men and women are equally as capable of making proposals that I consider idiotic.
Well, that escalated quickly.
Your assumption seems to be that a prosecution based mostly on conflicting witness/accused/complainant testimony cannot prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
John Banks thought so, too.
No I am not assuming that.
There will be mistakes of the kind I mentioned regardless of the system used. The number of mistakes are relatively few, but they are catastrophic for the wrongly convicted, and extremely upsetting for the victims of crime when the perpetrator is found Not Guilty.
Law reforms may help, but need to be considered extremely carefully. No system will be perfect
you obviously have no idea of the true stats around rape, convictions vs acquitals, impacts on victims, mistakes etc.
This might help,
“Just make a case for law reform”
No. There’s been plenty of work done on this already in NZ. If you are ignorant of it, go and educate yourself.
Everybody is innocent by law until proven guilty. Of course the moment a person commits a crime they are not innocent factually. But there is no way for Society to judge that until the Court process is complete.
yes, but blah blah blah, you haven’t replied to what I raised. You said that there is no evidence that the RB men are guilty beyond reasonable doubt. I said you have no way of knowing that unless it goes to court and you are a hypocrite for wanting justice applied where you see fit. You seem to assume that I am giving away the principle of innocent until proven guilty, but all I am doing is saying take the bloody case to court.
There are of course limits to the ideal of innocent until proven guilty, but until you can be honest about your biases here it’s unlikely we can discuss them.
This is a gendered issue. You can say you don’t care who wrote the law, but this is disingenuous in a system that overwhelming treats women like shit.
There are hundreds of proposals floating all over the place. I am well acquainted with the good, the bad, and the ugly.
If there is a case to answer, that is what I expect to happen, and I hope that happens. Detective Inspector Karyn Malthus, who headed Operation Clover, said there was not enough evidence to prosecute. I haven’t got any information to dispute that, although information has been presented in this discussion which states that there was an age disparity of about 13-25. If that is true, I am astounded that it is not going to Court
Perhaps the start of good news today, with the principle of pay equity for caregivers being established. Long overdue.
When Law reform is made it will stand without reference to whether it was written by men or women. It should not treat anybody like shit. It should treat everybody fairly. An injustice for one sector of society can never be corrected by creating an injustice for another. You will need to explain further if you consider this disingenuous
“There are hundreds of proposals floating all over the place. I am well acquainted with the good, the bad, and the ugly”
That’s such a vague and dissembling answer that I am having trouble believing you to be honest. Have you looked at what the Law Commission was doing?
“Detective Inspector Karyn Malthus, who headed Operation Clover, said there was not enough evidence to prosecute.”
She also said that she is disappointed that they couldn’t bring a conviction. That suggests that she thinks there should be one, but they can’t do it because of the prosection rules ie rape occured but they can’t get the ducks lined up right to do anything about it.
“When Law reform is made it will stand without reference to whether it was written by men or women. It should not treat anybody like shit. It should treat everybody fairly. An injustice for one sector of society can never be corrected by creating an injustice for another. You will need to explain further if you consider this disingenuous”
I think you are missing my point. Men should be capable of writing good law on this, but they’re not. Many men struggle with the concept of rape culture and where they fit into the societal responsibility for that. Many men still don’t understand what the law defines as rape (had conversations on ts where men have literally defended their right to have sex with a sleeping woman, even after the legislation showing that this is rape is linked to), let alone have concepts of consent that are shared by women.
Because historically men have had the power to write laws, they’ve shaped legal culture and it’s very difficult to change this. It is changing though, I’ve seen this in my life time. That the term ‘rape culture’ gets used by the MSM is an incredible shift in the past 5 years. Discussion of consent has shifted too (huge kudos to Louise Nicholas on that one). But the law still treats women like shit and the reasons that haven’t changed are to do with the attitudes of men in society and positions of power.
“An injustice for one sector of society can never be corrected by creating an injustice for another.”
Ok, let’s tease this out a bit. Are you saying that despite the overwhelming injustice that women face in rape cases*, this shouldn’t be changed if there is any chance that the change might result in even one more wrongful conviction of a man?
* relinking this graph,
Putting a heading “true stats” does not make anything true. Just as repeating a lie many times does not make a lie go away.
For a person who totally believes the complainant, you really have nothing constructive or meaningful to add to the subject of false allegation statistics. With your methodology, every accused person is guilty. All reports are true. And so your statistics inevitably mirror your method. Sort of a medieval form of justice you are promoting. And you are the same person who says “trust me”! Yeah right. Plonk.
[karol: go back on read the comment I put on your comment here. weka has been pretty patient explaining the issues of rape, sexual assault, rape myths, rape culture and the damage it does. You do not seem interested in learning. Go read some more, and do make an effort to understand]
weka “our society has chosen to believe men over women ”
that’s a good one
If matters do not go to Court but there has been a breach ‘of the peace’ then what can be done about sexual offending? Something ought to happen. If there is a complaint it can’t be left to the police to decide to do nothing.
t seems definitely a case for some confrontation and mediation and conciliation by offenders and eye to eye in person, in a private setting. It would be a change for these youngsters and their parents to talk about what should be happening in relationships between their children, and what could be changed to improve it. And the young people face fairly and squarely that there are consequences, for both sexes, when fair and reasonable standards are breached.
I’m not quite sure what you mean here but I sure hope that you are not suggesting that the girls involved are wheeled into counselling so that these guys can lord it over them.
FFS if the justice system isn’t going to do anything then further empowering these guys by demanding that their targets attend on them is not the way to go.
@ greywarshark (2.2.2)
It can be left to the police to decide to not prosecute. That is their job. And if it were not the police job, then there would have to be the job of somebody else.
The standard to send somebody to face charges in Court must be some significant level higher than simply that a complaint has been made!
In most legal proceedings, one party has a burden of proof, which requires it to present prima facie evidence for all of the essential facts in its case. If they cannot, its claim may be dismissed without any need for a response by other parties.
There is some safeguard. If the police decide not to prosecute, then a private prosecution can be made (as is what occurred in the John Banks case) The private prosecution needs to meet the same required standards for a prima facie case.
Until this standard has been met, we cannot assume that there has been any sexual offending.
I think a lot of people get confused about these issues, and feel that a complaint has substance in it’s own right.
But let me put this to you greywarshark: If I were to go the local police station and lay a complaint that you raped me last night, and demand that you be arrested. At the same time I will have the expectation that my complaint ‘must be believed’. What thoughts would you have as you sit in a police cell tonight, and over the following year as you wait on bail for your trial?
The rest of your post, about mediation and conciliation I applaud. The more that are able to be carried out with agreement from all parties the better. Many victims of crimes will accept and welcome a genuine apology and discussion.
But I guess that you would perhaps not like to come to such a mediation session with me, in the hypothetical case I have described above, where you were the person coming labelled as the “offender”?
FFS Brian. a criminal investigation isn’t like ordering fast food. You don’t just go into a police station and say “so and so raped me”.
The police in this case had 25 young women saying this. A small number of them made formal complaints. There was evidence to support that these activities were going on by the boys own admission.
And no charge. ???? I would love to hear what other evidence was required.
@ ankerawshark (220.127.116.11.1)
Take that up with Detective Inspector Karyn Malthus, who headed Operation Clover and said there was not enough evidence to prosecute.
The other possibility is a private prosecution if you think the police have come to the wrong conclusion (as in the John Banks prosecution)
That is a good idea Brian
Given that the public boasting of a crime of rape (in this case sex with a female underage) can be considered a confession, why is that not considered sufficient evidence to be charged? On the other hand a confession, of dubious provenance, from a not- too-bright S Auckland teen has lead to 20+ years of incarceration.
Maybe it is time for a change in the system to the European inquisitorial style of investigation where the Judge directs the investigation rather than just referees the evidence that has been selectively dished up.
safer communities together* **
*unless your a woman and/or poor,
**User experience may vary from that advertised
*** Journos potentially embarrassing the PM or the PMs Office may be subject to extended searches, property seizure & surveillance.
**** Its safer for us when we don’t prosecute our buddies/relatives/political cronies no matter how clear the evidence.
***** No matter how safe our communites actually are, still Greg O’Connor is going to demand all cops be gun armed all the time.
It was a foregone conclusion seen as one of them is the son of a policeman.
Depends who your parents are, another sign that NZ succumbs to corruption.
The sexual safety of young women is not in the public interest. But we knew that already.
Police said as a result of analysis of social media – mainly of Facebook and Askfm – they contacted the 110 girls, with 44 re-approached for clarification.
There was an over-riding fear among the girls of bullying by their peers as well as fear of being exposed by the media.
“There was sufficient information available that confirmed their fears as reality,” a police summary said.
And? What actions are the authorities now going to take to address the fact that witnesses and victims were bullied into silence? Even if they can’t prosecute, where is the community outreach? Is the govt going to offer anything to this community to solve these problems?
I see Malthus still fears for the 25 young women spoken to. And?
This list does not include the ones they did not brag about. Or did not have the ability to film photo or otherwise. And this was a work in progress, they got bolder and more arrogant as they went on.
Thomas Beagle retweeted
Rory MacKinnon @RoryMacKinnon 2 hrs2 hours ago
When NZ police promise a “review” over #Roastbusters, consider that this time 10yrs ago their own asst. commissioner was up on rape charges.
+10 on that one weka
Likely that the police were merely acting within their prescribed legal parameters. They shouldn’t be blamed.
Kneejerk accusations of corruption aren’t plausible either – the Police knew all eyes would be upon them after this deeper inquiry was mandated. The proposed “corruption” link is tenuous anyway – one of the suspects with a police officer in the family? No mention of rank etc.
As i said originally this whole case has been a case of mass moral hysteria/panic, horror and handwringing over the state and conduct of our youth, and what they get up to in the bedroom. Whatever has happened lies somewhere in the murky world of teenage sexuality. Was a crime committed at any point? Maybe…maybe not. With the amount of public heat on this case the police would have leaped to court if they even the most remote chance of securing a conviction.
“Likely that the police were merely acting within their prescribed rape culture parameters.”
There’s plenty to hold the police accountable for.
“Was a crime committed at any point?”
How about you read the Crimes Act and what it says about statutory rape?
You should also read this section “Allowing sexual activity does not amount to consent in some circumstances”
(those are 1961 Crimes Act links, you can follow the links to ammendments).
You could also read the full Malthus report. There wasn’t the admissible evidence to prosecute, and where Police did have concerns, the victims refused to come forward and make an official statement.
It was not a case of the evidence being admissible. It is obvious that the original complainants changed their mind and it is always of concern when this occurs. Besides some of the cases look pretty straight forward at least for a charge of unlawful sexual connection. The complainants were under the age of 16 years. For this particular offence consent is not a defence.
@ mickysavage (18.104.22.168)
If the boys and girls were all of a similar age, and either or both under 16, and the sexual encounter is consensual, then the police will almost always not charge anybody. If the age difference becomes significant, then it will be a different approach.
The fact that the complainants changed their mind, is always of concern. It is of concern for two possible reasons
(a) because a sexual offence has occurred and the victim is feeling intimidated.
(b) because a sexual offence has not occurred, and a false allegation has been made and retracted
The police quietly go about their investigations and uncover dozens of these cases in the second category every year. It was a huge problem in the 1990s but has become less of a problem since, although still serious, with publication of these cases in the media, even if the person is not prosecuted.
I am not an expert on the Roastbusters case, and do not have any fixed view about what occurred. Some of my thoughts below are speculations about why the police may have been justified in their decision. (Almost everybody else commenting here appear to be paid up members of the Sensible Sentencing brigade, where to be accused is to be immediately guilty)
One of the lawyers for one of the boys was on radio a few minutes ago referring to consensual activities in a group situation. If this was indeed the case, the police may indeed have had difficulty in laying charges, if the complaint did not stack up against other witness statements about what occurred. It could feasibly have also been a reason why some complaints were withdrawn. The benchmark here would not necessarily have been a “false allegation” but simply the complaint had insufficient merit. The complaints could have been very understandable with the web “roastbusters” publication.
False claims by young men about sexual achievements has always been a problem, usually fixed by maturity. The possibility of this being some part of the case should also be considered. We have after all got a Privy Council appeal just about to take place for a man who did (it appears) make a false confession.
Stop being so reasonable. This is obviously a case in which spontaneous outrage ought to carry the day…
What is a reasonable response to rape Tom?
I think it is horror and outrage, particularly when there is no consequences for the perpetrator.
Tell me what you honestly think is a reasonable response to rape?
“If the age difference becomes significant, then it will be a different approach.”
One girl who made a complaint was 13. That IS statutory rape.
And as Metiria Turei points out in this 3 News report, the police were too slow to take any action, to investigate thoroughly, 3 years ago.
Also on 3 News tonight (or was it Campbell live?), the mother of one of the girls was being bullied at school – her life made a misery – by those attacking her and telling her not to give evidence against the guys.
That IS rape culture.
Yup – 13 year old girls and up to 25 year old men is entirely not some teenage experimentation with sex and booze. There might be some grey areas, but it also seems clear that statutory rape is involved.
I would like to think the girls have some professional support. I doubt it though.
Also, this from a tweet. I haven’t been able to find corroborating information about this. Don’t know where to look.
I agree with both you and karol. “Consensual” sex between a 25 year old and a 13 year old is clearly Rape.
Aggravated by the extremely young age of the girl (much less than the age of consent), and the very large age difference.
I would also totally support your comment about all the girls receiving professional support.
Also, the ‘they’re too close in age for it to be statutory rape’ fails when you consider the consent issues around coersion and alcohol.
And gang rape.
consent is legally eroded by alcohol and drugs. It disappears. I think many have missed this very basic concept (not you Weka).
IF girls felt able to complain very quickly their blood can be tested for alcohol or drug levels. Peer pressure is enormously strong in the teens. Loss of face and being ridicule dor bullied is very powerful. Until we seriously spend time and money on readily available programmes in our schools to truly educate our kids on rape prevention this is going to go on forever and girls/women will bear the burden of the event NOT the boys/men. we see similar problems in “unwanted pregnancies”. I also haven’t read anything (doesnt mean it hasnt been printed) about whether any of these girls became pregnant. was contraception used? And so on.
This is about the value we place (predominantly) on girls and women (Am not saying boys and men do not suffer from sexual assaults/rape – and am saddened that I have to keep putting such riders in to avoid distractions in the thread). When girls feel strong and confidant and are not incapacitated by drugs or alcohol they will pursue options to get themselves out of dangerous and unwanted situations and report them afterwards.
This government canned such a programme in our schools which reported HIGH success in instilling self confidence in high school girls…
someone tweeted that the sexual assault squad was halved in henderson from 8 to 4…
This is NOT a society that genuinely sees it as a problem worth dealing with.
Schools are where the answers are at. If it’s left to men in the ‘wild’ to educate their sons, the chances of successfully changing attitudes are doomed.
It may be a real shocker to some, but apparently it seems boys have to be instructed not to rape or sexually assault. There is nothing wrong in social engineering if it makes society a fairer and safer place for all, in fact, it should be encouraged.
Well funded rape crisis centers in high schools should be a priority if concerns about the health and wellbeing of the girls are genuine. Reporting and prosecution of rapists is the way to eek it in to the male psyche.
Dude, it really isn’t okay. Sort your shit out, nonce.
The stupid thing is programmes for girls and boys EXIST. They operate in limited schools. Why not every school? Cos it aint a priority.
We wouldnt need rape crisis centres in every school if govt, any govt, funded the existing programmes into EVERY school.
If programmes such as the one I refer to above were extended not canned.
SCF foreign investors
Time to reprioritise I think.
A place where girls can report an offence in a safe, comfortable non threatening environment is probably not at a police station.
Schools seem like the perfect common sense location to assist under 18 girls after a violation.
but this is where this govt (and previous govts) priorities lie
$20m for limos
Good commment Tracey. And yeah re alcohol and drugs, people still not getting it even after I linked to the legislation. Men and boys need to understand that their own intoxication is not a defense either, which apparently is a challenge for some.
Rape Crisis and other organisations have been running training and education programs for a couple of decades. Fund them to work with education specialists to teach consent and legal issues in schools. That will change the culture.
I’m tempted to say that at the minimum all boys should be given yearly training from intermediate school onwards on what the law actually says rape is. That might wake a few people up. But really we need to be teaching sexuality in a much more holistic way, that sex is a mutual act not just a consensual one, and that there are a whole range of ways of managing sexual interactions. I also think that sexuality needs to be taught in the context of gender politics, that power and control issues mixed with peer pressure and socialisation into insecurity or low self esteem (or too high self esteem), and how children and teens are already being slotted into gender roles, all these play out differently for different genders and create unsafe situations.
“usually fixed by maturity.”
not by any attempt by society to get rid of the behaviour at the time. The boys grow up, with particular attitudes toward women (they may no longer brag about conquests) but the damage tot he girl is for a very long time. They also carry with them in one form or another an underlying attitude to women which is played out in front of their wives and girlfriends and daughters as “joking”. The impact on that joking on girls is strong in terms of the value they place on themselves. Father’s are CRUCIAL to the development of strong self image of girls in relation to men/boys. The idea that those who bragged about conquests get older and lose magically their underlying attitudes is a little naive
Brutus, you specifically asked if a crime was committed. I linked to the relevant legislation, which you then completely ignore. You sound like someone scrabbling to justify his prejudices.
I haven’t read the full report, perhaps you could link to it. I did read the bit about witnesses and victims being bullied into silence.
No, i definitely haven’t ignored the legislation. If a crime has been committed, the Police have deemed that it can’t be proven in court.
I’m certainly not a proponent of this unsavoury behaviour. Coercion or the use of stupification to gain sexual advantage could be seen as the ultimate form of disrespect of another human (aside from ending their life), and is anathema to me. I’m just trying to defuse ongoing accusations of corruption and/or conspiracy theories on behalf of the Police.
The Police have had a very thorough look at the issues, as can be seen in the full report.
please link to the full report.
You have not way of knowing if the police acted corruptly or not. Myself I doubt it because of the high public and political scrutiny, but there is no doubt that the police still have problems within their own ranks with regards to rape culture (examples given in this thread), so it’s natural that people are highly sceptical.
You don’t have to undermine the rape culture issues in order to make your point about the police. Note that even the police aren’t saying there was no crime. This isn’t a case of ‘if’ as you are putting it. Malthus has said she is disappointed they couldn’t bring a prosecution. That’s a pretty clear statement that they believe crimes were committed (unless you believe she is speaking unprofessionally, which kind of undermines your argument).
I published that comment before i’d read the thing thoroughly. It’s now abundantly clear that some criminal acts have been committed.
^Pdf link is at the bottom of that page.
I agree we need to change NZ’s lad culture, but it’s bloody hard.
Being a young man isn’t easy. IMO it’s a confluence of factors that cause this kind of thing. There is the incredibly strong biological impulse to have sex (and i don’t believe that most women understand male sexuality – that’s a post on its own). Then you have a competitive male culture – “scoring”, impressing your mates, and indeed in some respects validating your own self worth (“I got laid, go me”). There’s the deeply rooted idea of “conquest”, “the game”, “the chase” etc.
Let’s be honest – male or female, how many sexual encounters have you had that have simply began with explicitly stated mutual requests? Human mating rituals are back and forth dances and interactions that evolve from first meeting – sometimes taking minutes, others hours, days, weeks or years. You don’t straight up ask someone after an introduction whether you will have sex. No surprise then that some men, lacking social skills to or merely looking for a shortcut, turn to stupefication or varying degrees of coercion (some that they may not even be aware of).
So that’s the morass we’re dealing with. The examples given here are more clear cut. But simply labelling men as vile doesn’t help. In some respects we are. But you have to appeal to men’s better nature.
We also need to include girls/women in the education process as it is abundantly clear that their expectations of proper conduct from males needs to be raised too – see the female friends support of Roast Busters as an example.
thanks for the link.
Pretty much all of the issues you raise there are social constructs. We know this because rape culture as we experience it is not cross cultural. We also know that cultures that take different approaches to raising boys and young men get different outcomes.
“No surprise then that some men, lacking social skills to or merely looking for a shortcut, turn to stupefication or varying degrees of coercion (some that they may not even be aware of).”
In addition to that, men are socialised into the patriarchy, which brings a whole bunch of behaviours and beliefs around domination and who has privilege and who doesn’t. It’s not in any way a level playing field.
Yes, women are socialised too, and the whole of society is responsible for rape culture. But men are the ones dragging the chain at this point in time. Women have been working on this a long time, we’re the ones who brought rape culture into public view, and who’ve been agitating for change. More and more men are getting on board with this, but too many still think that the conversation about rape centres on their own personal needs to not get prosecuted and not to be seen to be ‘bad’.
“But simply labelling men as vile doesn’t help.”
I don’t actually see that happening much. What I see is many people calling men as a class out on their behaviour and actions, and some men taking that personally as if they’re being called evil. It’s a cul de sac in the conversation, it’s boring and I’m personally sick of it. If you think it’s hard being criticised so much, try being the recipient of criticism at the same time as strutural sexism and the continual threat of violence.
Go have a read of #gamergate if you want an extreme example of what women are dealing with in talking about fairness or rape culture.
Time for more men to man up and take responsibility. There have been women doing work on changing men’s attitudes, but I think ultimately it’s up to men to do that work and make the changes, not least because they will have strategies that designed for men.
@ Brutus Iscariot (9)
I think your post is well reasoned. The heat was on in this case, and the police would have been highly likely to press charges if there were not good reasons not to. Simply bringing the specialist sex abuse investigator in from Wellington and working on the case for a year provides an indication that they did treat this case very seriously.
There have been a large number of examples of mass moral hysteria/ panics in New Zealand over the last couple of decades. The most outrageous of these was the imaginings of satanic ritual abuse rings associated with sexual crimes in the early 1990s, that Sandra Coney amongst others promoted, and Peter Ellis became the victim. This did have all the marks of another outrage case, although it just as easily could have been, until today, an example of a very serious crime.
You have also alluded to the possibility of a crime still actually have been committed. Others have referred to statutory rape, although there are very large number of precedents of similar cases not going to court where the ages of the participants have been very similar. To press this case would lead to a closer examination of why this case was being treated differently to all the others.
At the very least what the boys did with a web roast-busters page appears despicable (Although I have not seen it to form a considered view). Has a crime been committed here?
@bsb Glad to see some considered thoughts being aired on this.
Actually Brian is perpetuating some common rape myths eg that false allegations are high. He’s also conflating different issues around rape prosecutions that have little to do with each other, and in doing so obscuring the facts in the roast busters case as well as perpetuating the myth that women lie about sexual assualt and can’t be trusted.
A lot of Whaleoil 101 smears with no evidence weka.
and you start with a….. false allegation….!
No facts. No reference. No detail.
Just a lot of hot air
What facts? What is obscured? How is it obscured?
Just simply more hot air.
I would be foolish to perpetuate any statement that all women, or even many are criminals and lie in such a way. As it would be just as foolish for anybody to claim that a small minority of women have never been guilty of such a crime. Is that really what you are trying to suggest?
My starting assumption when I meet anybody is that they are honest, and can be trusted.
But I cannot actually see where I wrote anything in my post that would justify your comment. And therefore my trust in you to be honest in this discussion is diminishing.
That’ll do for a start. Problem is, calling people out on rape apology and rape myths is tedious now that we’ve been doing it for so long. Go and educate yourself on what rape myths are, and reflect on how you are contributing to the problem.
@ wekarawshark (22.214.171.124.1.1)
I called you out in your previous post for your Whaleoil type smear. I gave you the opportunity to provide some substance. The best you can do is continue with more smear. I’m not surprised.
I gave you a link demonstrating what I said, are you going to respond to that?
bear in mind that we’ve had many discussions on this on ts in the past. Like I said, it’s just tedious seeing the same old rape myths again and again. Why should I have to spend time and energy addressing this?
@ wekarawshark (126.96.36.199.188.8.131.52.1)
Your succession of Whaleoil type smears are tedious too, but I will call them all as I see them. It’s the only way to fight the culture of Dirty politics. What you write here is yet another odious example.
You do not have to spend time and energy addressing anything here.
good grief, this isn’t dirty politics (ffs, read the book or read the analyses of the book so you know what the term actually means).
I am curious why you think it’s a WO smear instead of just a garden variety smear though.
“You do not have to spend time and energy addressing anything here.”
True, I could just let the rape apologies prevail.
@ wekarawshark (184.108.40.206.220.127.116.11)
There was nothing there demonstrating what you said.
I suspect that the comparison of RB with “mass moral hysteria/ panics” and “imaginings” is one of the clearer examples in the comment wrs linked to.
Self reflection may lead you to understand the dirty nature of your smears. I’ve referred to it as a Whaleoil smear, as it has a very similar style. Unsubstantiated allegations.
Just as in this post again, with your claims about rape apologies.
The imaginings I referred to was concerning the Satanic Ritual abuse moral panic starting in the late 1980s and petering out by the mid 1990s. It’s a classic study in moral panic. And a real victim, Peter Ellis.
[karol: actually, weka is not smearing. She’s providing a critique that you are failing to take on board. I suggest you go back and read what weka, puddleglum and tracey have been saying and try to digest it.
It really gets tiresome when some people here explain, again and again what the problem is with rape culture, and the continued failure of our judicial system to deal with rape and sexual assault, and some just don’t want to know. But it’s EXTREMELY tiresome when those explanations are branded as smears.]
comparing the RB case with moral panic is rape apology. Either you haven’t been following the case (in which case you shouldn’t be commenting on what you don’t know), or you don’t understand what rape is. You’ve made a number of statements where you have doubted rape took place, this despite descriptions that fit legal definitions of rape. That’s rape apology. You can still stand up for innocent until proven guilty, but you go further and undermine the experiences of the victims.
McFlock gave one example and you still seem to think that comparisons with the Ellis case are valid. Sounds like prejudice to me – the RB gang have been set up, it wasn’t really rape, it was just moral panic etc. How is that not rape apology?
“Self reflection may lead you to understand the dirty nature of your smears. I’ve referred to it as a Whaleoil smear, as it has a very similar style. Unsubstantiated allegations.”
See, you simply cannot explain yourself can you? I asked how it was like WO, you refuse to tell me and just say it was. No wonder I find this so tedious. The ‘allegations’ have been substantiated at least twice.
btw, I see you haven’t responded to Puddlglum’s detailed critique of your argument.
how about you go and do the same analysis of the commenter at 9.2
B as B.
A number of these girls stated they were raped. Did they all make that up?
The number of cases where people make stuff up is very small c/p to rape that never makes it to court.
If those girls said they were raped, I believe them. Totally.
@ ankerawshark (9.2.2)
I do not know. Detective Inspector Karyn Malthus, who headed Operation Clover, said there was not enough evidence to prosecute.
That’s another substantial topic that is worthy of debate, but not particularly relevant to the case in hand
In parts of the world today, summary beheadings are in vogue. Lynch mobs used to be very active. And before that the Inquisition. And let us not forget before that how we determined who were witches.
B as B your last comment about Summary beheadings is at best irrelevant and
and at worst an attempt to distract and deflect from the real issues.
@ ankerawshark (18.104.22.168.1)
I disagree with your analysis.
It’s one of several types of justice I referred to that is born from “total belief”. No attempt to distract, and is probably one of the more important points I’ve made in this whole discussion tonight. What I wrote is absolutely the best and most relevant response to your comment.
“There have been a large number of examples of mass moral hysteria/ panics in New Zealand over the last couple of decades. The most outrageous of these was the imaginings of satanic ritual abuse rings associated with sexual crimes in the early 1990s, that Sandra Coney amongst others promoted, and Peter Ellis became the victim.”
The consistency of your analysis on this post appears to be slipping. Are you saying in the quote above that you know better than numerous legal verdicts in the case of the Christchurch Civic Creche case?
I only ask because, until now, your main concern appears to have been that others commenting here are questioning the legal process in relation to the roast busters decision and the safeguards built into that system (e.g., the ‘innocent until proven guilty’ principle). They are then making ‘wild’ claims for which, you believe, they have no reason to make.
Yet to further your argument you then question the veracity of another legal process – the Ellis case.
Further, and similarly, you then state, in response to Brutus Iscariot’s post, that “You have also alluded to the possibility of a crime still actually have been committed” with the apparent implication that you think that, given the police’s decision, there is no reason to believe a crime has occurred.
Indeed, you also state “This did have all the marks of another outrage case, although it just as easily could have been, until today, an example of a very serious crime.” (i.e., after today it is not an example of a “very serious crime”, presumably based on the police’s decision?).
Yet, surely that approach to legal decisions and their relationship to the claims we can make means that you should have no reason to believe that Peter Ellis is a victim since the legal process has, to date, not shown this to be the case. He was found guilty on several charges and has not, yet, been cleared of those verdicts despite numerous cases and reports and requests to ministers.
(Please don’t conclude anything about my personal opinion over the Creche case – I simply point it out to highlight what I see as as an inconsistency in your own arguments.)
Strangely, up-thread you state “Of course the moment a person commits a crime they are not innocent factually. But there is no way for Society to judge that until the Court process is complete.“.
That seems to suggest that you are aware that crimes can be factually committed without the need for a court case to make it so – the latter being simply an expedient means for society to come to some (correct or incorrect) decision about the facts.
Given that, then, again, why do you seem so convinced that no crime exists in the roast busters case simply on the basis of a decision not to prosecute?
You seem to be getting tangled up in your own arguments as they march on and off the stage in chaotic fashion.
Puddleglum….. Have not any time left tonight, even to read your comment in full. Looks like a well thought out comment Will look tomorrow ~ smile~
I’m looking forward to that.
Looks like Bold Sir Brian bravely ran away
Its called having a life. I even took the unusual step of explaining why I was not going to comment immediately. It was 11:54pm!
But don’t let that stop you providing your …ahh.. “helpful” interpretation. I did not realise there was a huge audience hanging on my every word.
Sure. Glad you found time to comment.
@ puddleglum (9.2.3)
Your criticism is valid, because I did not explain the difference in the approaches of the two cases.
In the Ellis case there has been a trial, and appeals, and all the evidence is available to study. It is my opinion, based on considerable study of all the evidence that there has been a miscarriage of justice in that case. One of the clearest concerns I have is that the primary complainant (the eldest and most compelling witness) said that her evidence was untrue. On Appeal he was found not guilty of the particular charges, but the sentence was left standing. That is of course the right of a judge, but in my opinion, a retrial should have been ordered. There are many other issues associated with the case, and you are probably aware of the calls for a Commission of Inquiry signed by many prominent New Zealanders, including ex Prime Ministers.
On a working level, I do not expect anybody else to have followed the case in the same detail that I have. Questioning all cases for a miscarriage of justice is simply not feasible for individuals. (A Criminal Cases Review Commission has been called for, and the possibility of that happening in the future is becoming more likely) In the meantime, cases that do need to be reviewed rely on the efforts of concerned private individuals. There have been a succession of them in recent years (Pora at the Privy Council this coming month).
I referred to the Ellis case as the culmination of a moral panic. And I stand by that comment. I don’t think I need to explain what I mean by that. Numerous long articles have been written over the years. As with all cases like this, there will be opposing views. Which I also understand. The one good thing about the Ellis case is that he can walk freely, and wherever he goes, he receives warm greetings. Incidentally just as he was treated in prison. He has won a “People’s pardon”, but not an official one. The story is hopefully not yet over, but I am beginning to suspect he is not being best well served by his lawyer.
Now the Roast busters case. The case is different because it has not gone to trial. And I know less about it. I have followed the case but not intently. There may be some things I have not read. There may be some things I have read and forgotten. But I see very close parallels to the public reaction to the Ellis case before and after Ellis was charged, and the Roast Buster case up to this stage. It is in that context I drew the parallels with the Ellis case. I could have, and should have reiterated that the parallels do not extend to any view I have that I consider the accused “roast busters” are innocent of any crime. I do not know.
But what I do know about the Roast busters case, and it continues into many of the comments here, is that there is a lot of noise and demands, that are more often than not, not matched with what I consider an equivalent amount of knowledge. And that has been the case from the time the case was first exposed in the media. The lack of knowledge is a concern itself of course, and is probably the main concern right now. Some of the outrage is justified: If we are to have faith in the police investigation, we need to know why they have come to the conclusion they have. (Especially as Malthus is now also saying that she would like to have charged them). Outrage over how the case was treated by the police from the beginning also seems justified, because there appears to have been some fundamental errors made. It’s important to know, but it’s also important to have an open mind that the decision may have been appropriate. I do not want to ever see a justice system where the standard required over the case going forward is anything less than a prima facie case existing. That would be simply unfair on too many accused.
I hope that has explained the references to the Ellis case. I could have done better (although I was last night, and am now ~smile~ writing quickly!). There are some legitimate comparisons between some aspects of the cases, but there are also many significant differences. I’ll just finish this section on that note: In the Ellis case, I believe the evidence points to Ellis having done nothing at all. At the very least, in the Roast busters case, the accused have undeniably done something that is (as I said last night) despicable at best.
It was a quick comment. I had a completely open mind as to what the police may have ended up doing with their inquiry. After all they were getting witness statements and information that no one else had been aware of. So, at one level, my instinctive reaction is to accept the decision at face value. But I’m not a person to quickly for a belief … I’m a proud member of the skeptics ….and I’m fully aware of far too many botch ups by the police, which can go either way. In this case, statements that I’ve seen from Malthus since I was writing last night indicate she ‘wanted to take a case’ but could not . Insufficient details, but the fact that they are not being prosecuted, does not mean that even the police with their decision think that a crime has probably been committed. (The issue of statutory rape with 13/25 year differential, raised in discussion here is a baffling ingredient; If this is true, I would have expected that to be easy to take forward ……. So many unknowns)
I hope my discussion above has answered these issues ok?
I’ll take your word for saying that I appeared to you to be “convinced no crime exists in the roast busters case simply on the basis of a decision not to prosecute”. That was certainly not my intention. What I was doing was presenting legitimate or possible scenarios for the police to have come to the conclusion they did. And I was doing that because of the level of outrage being expressed … even leading to what appeared to be threats of naming and shaming … without any consideration at all, that there may real reasons why the police came to the decision they did, other than that they were supporting a “rape culture”. But in answers to others who questioned me on this score, I replied that I did not know these facts (as we all do not) and the best person to question would be the police team and Malthus in particular. And I even made the point that a private prosecution is also something someone that could be considered.
Finally thanks for your post. I appreciate it.
Thanks for the response.
You state that your familiarity with the intricate details of the Ellis case has led you to believe (a) that a miscarriage of justice occurred and (b) that you perceive similarities between that case and the response to the original Roast Busters accusations.
Given that that was your response to the decision not to prosecute. And given that your response was drawn from your own personal experience and familiarity with previous cases and events, then perhaps you might think again about where others on this thread are coming from.
That is, perhaps you can therefore understand why – similar to yourself – some people on this thread are responding to the failure to prosecute the Roast Busters case because of their own familiarity with (a) previous sexual crime cases and events and (b) more widespread phenomena around how women, in particular, and their concerns are treated in our society.
Just as you see this as an example of ‘moral panic’, others may well see it – with equal justification and based on their own familiarity with similar events – as an example of ‘rape culture’, or whatever term you prefer to refer to widespread cultural support (but by no means universal) for the minimisation of the sexual harm inflicted upon women on a daily basis.
Some expression of understanding that others’ reactions to the Roast Busters case are not to be categorised pejoratively as some form of hysterical, irrational response would go a considerable way towards understanding others’ perspectives on such morally and socially fundamental issues.
Casting many women’s (and men’s) views on this as beyond the (reasonable) pale does a deep injustice to the basis for those views.
(It reminds me a bit of when right wingers talk about the ‘agenda’ of scientists over climate change or, more generally, the ‘agenda’ of environmentalists – you know, to get research funding or to destroy the world economy, respectively, or some other nonsense.)
The similarities between the two cases at the beginning was a common outrage, with little consideration to the possibility of alternative explanations being possible. That is the essence of a moral panic.
The issue is that in the investigation stages an open mind about what has occurred must be maintained, so that investigation is thorough. The irrational response is when previous experience, and previous cases affect the judgement in the present case. Wrong outcomes, affect the whole system, and revictimise the victim.
In my opinion there are far too many cases where the police form a belief far too soon in the investigation. (Of guilt or innocence) Because once they have formed that belief it is human nature to tend to defend the belief. It’s also human nature to want to form such an opinion quickly too. And I’m sure that past experience has a large part to play . And despite this criticism of the police, it is probable that because of their training the police are actually better (in general) than those outside the police in being impartial.
Being outraged over a culture that condones, or appears to condone rape, (or any crime) is totally justified. That outrage is not some form of hysterical, irrational response. Outrage (for any crime) only becomes hysterical or irrational when that outrage affects the quality of the investigation or judgement in future cases. That I’ve referred to as a “moral panic” in the first paragraph. Think McCarthyism of the 1950s. That could be levelled against both (or all?) sides of the current debate,
With regard to agenda. I do reject all inferences that I have an agenda of being supportive of any rape “myths” or supportive of a rape culture, especially when no specific references are provided for me to defend, clarify, or retract.
I hold the principle of “first do no harm” to heart. I would not like my support of Peter Ellis, for example, to be at the expense of any increased incidence of crimes of a sexual nature. There is no reason why the two should be linked.
There is another issue worth referring to when considering the issue of looking at all ‘sides’ in an investigation. The best prosecution has a superb defence. That covers every possible reason for exoneration. The resulting conviction leaves no wriggle room for appeal. Rock solid.
Thank you for going through your thinking and understanding of the
roastbuster’s case and others. You have thoroughly progressed through the points that the other commenters have thoroughly raised.
Brutus Iscariot. It is illegal to have sex with a minor. That is against the law. No murkiness there I am afraid. End of story.
I think it was five young women who made complaints. Are you saying they made up that they were raped?
Do you have any idea of the impact of rape on the victim? The highest rates of PTSD (post traumatic stress disorder) are found in rape victims. Higher rates than in combat victims.
What do you think would be a reasonable response to teen age girls being plowed with/drinking copious amounts of alcohol and having young men drive them around having sex with that girl, one after the other. Then boasting about it on-line?
If there is “hysteria” about the issue of the roastbusters, I would suggest it is an appropriate response.
So this is a perfect case in point for “dirty politics”.
The ‘nice’ left would obey the law, follow the suppression orders, and not hatch their own version of exposing and shaming and vilifying.
A ‘dirty politics’ Left activism – (hold your nose) – would not care as much about privacy of the apparent perpetrators, not wait for the police, and would publish and be damned.
Cue outrage either way. But guess who won the election? Dirty politics. It’s the new acceptable limit.
what? that doesn’t make sense.
Put on your cape and mask and pretend you are the left’s version of Whaleoil.
Still not making sense. There is no left version of WO and even if there was your garbled description wouldn’t be it. What does this have to do with roast busters anyway?
What would Whaleoil Do
If there isn’t the right version of the left to win this battle, make one.
Fuck off. This isn’t about dirty politics and has nothing to do with WO. Stop trying to make this about your pet theory (whatever the hell it is).
btw, if you keep posting in this thread and refusing to clarify what you mean, expect to get abuse rather than conversation.
The reason your suggestion is unlikely to be acted upon is culture beats strategy. Don’t hesitate to ask if you’re at all confused by that statement.
National strategy beats underlying Kiwi cultural values, three times in a row.
“Culture beats strategy” is a crawl into the quietist cave of defeatism.
Figure out how to win.
“National strategy beats underlying Kiwi cultural values, three times in a row.”
You seem to be implying that ‘Kiwi cultural values’ are uniformly virtuous or, at least, are inevitably out of step with National’s two-track strategy.
What makes you think that?
There’s plenty of evidence that those values aren’t always virtuous and actually cover a wide range of ‘values’ many of which are ripe for National’s strategy – e.g., valuing suppression of emotion, valuing anti-intellectualism, valuing ‘sucking it up’ (for those who ‘lose’), valuing ‘winners’ (no matter how they win), valuing not making a fuss (i.e., not ‘whinging’), valuing subordination to authority, valuing taking ‘pragmatic’ ethical ‘short cuts’, valuing the pursuit of self-interest, etc..
There are, of course, positive values as well in Kiwi culture – as in all cultures.
Nope I don’t imply they are virtuous at all.
OK, then what “underlying cultural values” were beaten by National’s strategy?
My view is that National’s strategy simply makes appeal to certain, specific Kiwi cultural values – i.e., it works with the culture.
I thought Ad was referring to the way National uses propaganda to appeal to our worst cultural values. i.e various forms of small-mindedness and bigotry, that, sadly, still appears to be mightily acceptable in this country, and becoming increasingly so because of the propaganda – it is cultivating the negative aspects of our culture.
Thatcher said they had to remove the “idea” of “society”.
In other words, they couldn’t progress their agenda of selfishness and “dog eat dog” without breaking down the idea that, “we are all in this together”.
I suspect that the “swing voters” are the ones that National tries to appeal to. Obviously not a nice group of people.
Fear of change was a big motivator in many I know that voted National even when I pointed at their empty workshops.
I don’t honestly know that the callousness and self interest I see around me was always there, or it has surfaced as a result of 30 years of societal economic breakdown, as many more people are leading insecure and impoverished lives.
Hey puddleglum. Given what university trained economists, accountants, pol “science” graduates and assorted other people with 30 000 new words and an arrogant attitude have done to the working people of New Zealand, I thing the “anti-intellectualism is more than justified.
😆 at “defeatism”.
Put down the crack pipe and see your Doctor now!
The problem here is that the police ignored written complaints about the behaviour of these dickheads for more than a year.
Rather than dealing with it, they left it to be repeated until it broke into the public sphere. Then the police belatedly started an investigation in a blaze of publicity, one that was virtually guaranteed to ensure that teenagers wanted as little to do with it as possible.
I think that you are right in this case. This is one where clearly the ‘correct’ process simply didn’t work (for whatever reason). I have no confidence that the police are capable of cleaning up the errors that caused this to happen even if the IPCA gives them clear guidance.
I think that it is time to demonstrate what the ‘dirty’ process that will happen when the police fail in their duties. In this case the alleged perpetrators, their family, all of the failures of individual police, and the schools where this culture was allowed to flourish should be regularly named with the known facts of the case.
In essence google bombing each of them. It isn’t fair – but who gives a crap. They all need to be pushed into the stocks of the present. Of course they are welcome to take a civil case. However if I simply stick to the facts it should make that difficult to try.
Glad you got what I was saying.
When the police won’t do their jobs others will.
Follow that line of inquiry.
You’re on to it.
I invite everyone who is concerned that ours laws/the police are unable/unwilling to provide protection/justice for the women of NZ against sex crimes including those girls below the age of consent.
I just see more rich connected people getting away with crime . I noticed they got a women cop to front the news to try and lessen the damage.
b waghorn. The woman fronting the news hasn’t worked for me. As a woman and a tax payer (I don’t usually use this justification but bloody hell I contribute to these peoples wages) this is unacceptable.
I have never, ever made up a claim of rape and I don’t believe for a moment that the vast majority of women do.
Like many I have been the victim of molestation when I was under age and an attempted rape. The perpetrators are overwhelming protected. I am bloody sick of it. The law needs to change. I rather see the odd person falsely imprisoned than the vast majority getting off scott free.
I’m normally a strong believe in backing the police but this failure to at lest charge them with statutory rape is sickening .
It is important to keep in mind that the issue is not the decision from the police – it is WHY they made that decision.
If they had taken this to court they would have applied pressure on girls to go to court and all the stress that that a high profile case involves – and they would have still lost. (or only got them on a minor charge that would be the equivalent of a loss for most involved).
The main change that needs to be made is in regard to why so many people are dissuaded from taking the case to court (the adversarial system) and in regard to other support provided for victims of crime.
Kids in sexual abuse cases (and these girls are kids at 13) can give evidence by video can they not?
Interesting that you have not considered the psychological benefit of the girls going to court and having their story heard is not considered. With full support, this could be an empowering action – even if the case does not result in a guilty verdict.
At present, not only have they been involved in non-consensual outing of underage sex, (and more than likely given their complaints, non-consensual sex itself) – they have been considered not worth paying attention to.
There are no easy answers, but not prosecuting because winning is difficult seems to be a cop-out.
(Update: Just read wekarawshark’s link below, and thought that it is unlikely that we have sufficient resources to support complainants in this case given that personal account. )
A few years ago if someone had said we have a culture which celebrates rape in New Zealand, I would have said no way.
Maybe it was the people I grew up and worked with.
Or maybe, being male and fairly physically tough, I was insulated from it.
The rules, as I was aware of them are.
A real man,
1. Does not hit women.
2. Doesn’t need to get women drunk to have sex with him.
3. Doesn’t take a knife to a fist fight.
4. Never tells.
Most people I knew kept to them, at least outwardly.
When a naked drunk girl wandered into my room at work, years ago. I did what I thought any self respecting young bloke would do. Dressed her and sent her in a taxi home.
Recent events close to my family have changed my mind.
It wasn’t a police failure, they really did their best in this case.
There are too many guys that think being a decent, considerate human being is for someone else. Way too many now in positions of power.
I thought the roastbuster case was shocking. However did those guys think it was OK? What are we telling our boys, and girls?
Anyway. Louise Nicholas speaks much more clearly than I can.
Try doing rape apology after reading that. At the very least understand why so many people are righteously angry today.
Thank you so much for that link.
I stayed away from this thread yesterday. That was a good decision on my part. Coming in today and reading much of what has been written has made me cry. Literally. Thanks to you Weka for staying the course and challenging some of the “arguments” proffered here. Puddlegum too. You are better and stronger humans than I
thanks Tracey. I have huge respect for people that have the skill to stay away and practice self-care 🙂 Might have been better if I had been able to stay away too.
It was pretty hard going yesterday. Not just the number of comments pontificating from on high with very little knowledge about rape culture, but the realisation that the standard simply isn’t a safe place to have these conversations. It’s like the intelligentsia version of Kiwiblog. In general I find there are a lot of men on the standard who do understand rape culture, but most tend to either say a few things and then leave the conversations, or like yesterday very few commenting at all. Because the arguments are pretty much the same as last time and the time before and the time before etc, only with new rape apologitsts, it ended up feeling like despite the many people who do understand rape culture there is this endless stream of people arriving where the same things have to be said over and over again. Ground hog day.
I’m not going to tell the standard authors how to run this site. I will say again it’s not a safe place for these discussions. You won’t be the only person who felt the need to stay away. In order for it to be safe, it needs moderation, where people who are running rape apology lines or posting rape myths are expected to educate themselves on what those things are. If they then want to come back and argue that the politics of rape culture aren’t valid (this is a political blog afterall) then there needs to be a separate thread for that 😈
I miss QoT.
Of course all of that takes time and energy, and I recognise that we don’t have that. The impression I had yesterday, here and elsewhere, was that many people didn’t have the oomph to engage, and fair enough given what the left has been through this year.
[karol: sorry that this has been happening. I haven’t had much energy and been busy. Had a cold. Working, etc. Moderators aren’t always available when discussions are happening. It is possible to have such discussions on full moderation. As you say, it is a discussion that just keeps getting repeated. Some people who perpetuate rape apologies, and rape culture, just do not take on board how upsetting it can be for others]
nicely put, and again well done for challenge the myths and the bizarre attempt to intellectualise something as though it were the same as fewer teachers with higher pay versus more teachers
Thanks for saying it Weka et al.
thanks karol 🙂
Sorry Weka. I was one of the ones taking the self care route.
As pointed out in the tweets, if these fucks had committed a serious crime like embarrassing the Prime Minister, as opposed to mere rape, three years ago the cops would have got a warrant to seize their phones and other computers “like they did with that Hager guy”, the perps would have been done like a dinner and no-one much would have heard about this case. Turn up three years late and try to rely on the perps dobbing each other in, and oddly enough there just isn’t the evidence to justify criminal proceedings.
After the Louise Nicholas case, the cops were supposedly turning over a new leaf – guess we now know what those claims were worth…
Not much in West Auckland.
I think that it’d be interesting to find out if they are as lackadaisical elsewhere.
Surprised that this is a political post. Some seem to think that the police should prosecute even without adequate evidence. Hardly the fault of the sixty ,yes sixty , National MP’s. Do posters not believe the police cannot find enough evidence?
I am disappointed that they cannot but I do accept that they have done their best,
“Do posters not believe the police cannot find enough evidence?”
It seems no
Does that surprise? Were you in Rotorua in the 80’s? It’s not that long ago – I’m sure your would have been alive then
@ fisiani (17)
It is political, because of the public outrage against crimes of violence (including sexual violence), and a large number of people suggesting improvements could be made by altering laws.
These are concerns, I suggest, that cross Party lines.
They didn’t do their best, i.e. the police. They got a formal complaint and did nothing for a year (e.g.didn’t visit schools, issued strong warning, seize the boys cars, cellphones, laptops etc, didn’t alert their local MP) and then lied about it saying they had been no formal complaint.
@ ankerawshark (17.3)
Like that Hager fulla again..
.. no wait
“I am disappointed that they cannot but I do accept that they have done their best,”
Lying about or losing a complainant. Taking years to investigate the original complaint. Asking complainants what they were wearing. Ascribing responsibility for rape to girls who are drunk. No, the police haven’t done their best.
“Do posters not believe the police cannot find enough evidence?”
The problem is that the NZ police have a recent and appalling history of rape culture internally. Why would anyone believe they are capable of investigating this properly? This isn’t to say that there aren’t good individuals within the police, who are trying to address rape culture, but until the police can demonstrate that they are capable of not victim blaming or that they take complaints seriously then they do no deserve to have the confidence of the public. Bear in mind that various people and organisations have been trying to get rape investigations handled properly for decades now. Why is it taking so long?
and look who used to be Minister of Police a woman with very little integrity or value for ethics and the right thing.
Anne Tolley? Nah, she’s not bright enough to have ethics. No, wait…
I don’t. They apparently didn’t damn well investigate for more than a year after they received the first complaint.
This is a subject of an IPCA complaint that I suspect will be upheld. I am expecting the police to do what they usually do when the IPCA rules against any of their members systematic violations of their duties, and to simply ignore it.
In the meantime these dickheads appear to have gotten away with raping underage girls because the police didn’t do their job when they *first* received statements of complaint.
After all all blew up at Green Bay school it sounds like the police out west simply weren’t interested in investigating those complaints, or the ones that they could have gotten from an earlier set of incidents at Avondale.
If the police won’t (or can’t) do their job, then clearly it is time to try something different. Simply name the young men, their parents, and their associates in a post every 2-3 months as a warning against anyone associating with them.
They are welcome to try a civil case.
that year was a long long long time in terms of evidence and mood of complainants
From what June says at Public Address, the last thing these kids ought do is call these cops, at this time.
Lprent I think your instincts for vigilantism are misplaced: Parker and Hales are not the only perpetrators out there, icebergs leap to mind – shall we let the mainstream media tell us who to target (as in this case) or do our own “investigations”?
There are plenty of ways The Standard can attack rape culture without recourse to cyber-lynchings.
Edit “cyber lynching” is a poor choice of words I expect.
That said, perhaps the meeja are way ahead of you.
Doesn’t have to be vigilantism. It could be naming those known to have been involved (because of their own social media actions), holding them to account, and that leaves the way open for remorse and willingness to change. I think great care would need to be taken too in how this was done, but keeping the issue in the public eye is a good idea.
There are so many things that need to be done here, it’s hard to know which way to turn. I like the suggestion of going for the Ministry of Education and asking hard questions about what is happening in schools, both with the curriculum and with social/cultural things where kids are at risk.
I also want to know what else can be done for this particular community. I had thought the police had the capacity to do education and community outreach. Is this not so? Or lack of resources? Lack of care? The inability to prosecute makes some kind of sense, the inability to use the whole thing as an opportunity to make change is inexcusable.
Oh, and fuck the government for refusing to discuss this in parliament. Fuck them.
Fuck is a poor choice of words in this context. For Unlawful Carnal Knowledge being the offence under discussion, that is.
What you said about a safe place for discussion: The Standard most certainly isn’t at this time. It definitely belongs in schools though. Except partnership schools: don’t want any children attending rape culture awareness classes with unregistered teachers.
This government has no show of success, because their philosophy is dependent on the ability of the strong to prey on the weak at will.
Just to go off on a tangent…
one of the things that surprised me about the roastbusters case, and the Malaysian diplomat attempted rape issue currently being played out again, is that so many people claimed it was a white male problem …
Thing was that it was a brown male problem and they are the ones who need to deal with it. The original perpetrators were brown, the people that got fired for speaking out about it (willie and JT) were brown, and the Malaysian diplomat was not white.
This entire sequence was labelled as “rape culture” and it was foisted onto the white male. The brown people never stood up and claimed it.
Non-white men need to stand up and own it…
“is that so many people claimed it was a white male problem … ”
“Non-white men need to stand up and own it…”
Own what exactly?
You didn’t ask for that with Dave Brown’s claim yesterday about white men. Why the different approach?
Because I knew what he was talking about, but I don’t know what you are talking about so I want to see it in context.
Also, Brown was expressing opinion (which we can agree or disagree on). You are stating fact, and I’d like to see what you are basing that on.
weak and I don’t believe you
whatever. Link or it didn’t happen and you just made some shit up about all these people that blamed white men for black men raping.
please provide a link or something to a comment in regards to white men problem.
also considering that we dont know the race of the third perpetrator, i.e. the son of the cop it might be that these guys are white brown or of mixed ethnicity.
And also why are you trying to make this a ‘brown’ thing. Do white men not rape?
For a link please search this site under ‘roastbusters’ and you will find plenty of such.
And why is it a brown thing? Because it is. Check the facts.
Your last sentence is ridiculous.
I forewarned of tangentiality …
no, you made the assertion, so back it up or it didn’t happen.
(honestly vto, you had your chance. I was actually interested in the context. Now I think it’s just bullshit).
honestly weka, it is only those on the defensive who call for such types of links
you are well aware of the different approaches to the races of men on this site.
well, you should be,
I keep pointing them out often enough … don’t you read my shit?
“one of the things that surprised me about the roastbusters case, and the Malaysian diplomat attempted rape issue currently being played out again, is that so many people claimed it was a white male problem … ”
If that is true, that so many people claimed it was a white male problem, then you shouldn’t have difficulty providing a few links.
Otherwise you look like you are just trying to squirm your way out of telling porkies by making out I am defensive. I’m not defending anything, not least because I still don’t know what you are talking about.
Link or it didn’t happen.
it is only those on the defensive who call make a claim and then dont bother to provide the link with the claim or when it is asked for.
@ vto (18)
Racism, from Start to Finish.
I was sexually assaulted by a white male in his 60’s when I was 11. he’s dead now, so maybe white men no longer have a problem in this area? A dear friend of mine was regularly raped by her two older brothers from the age of 5. They were white and male.
I have never suggested it is a white male problem, but as you know I do suggest that the sexual assualt and rape of women and girls by men, is a male problem.
It’s a problem with the patriarchy, which in NZ is dominated by white men. Vto takes discussion of this as a personal insult to his own gender identity and ethnicity and uses that sense of offense to bolster his own politics around gender and ethnicity.
yup… and in that time even more people became victims of sexual abuse but vto and others felt better, for a wee while.
I can see why the police might have had problems making a case. First of all, they waited for years and lied about the original complaint. The other reasons are mostly their fault as well. They never had the will to do anything, and moved reluctantly when there was a national outcry. It could well be a case of justice delayed being justice denied.
On the other hand, reading some of the bullshit about rape in the comments shows me that many of my fellow men have not come far at all. The myths are still prevalent.
Just watched on filmsforaction.org, a short film (2 min) taken of a woman walking around the streets of New York.
For those who don’t understand what rape culture is, the supposedly benign catcalls are indicative of how instrusive it is in everyday life. (Especially telling is the woman’s face when she is joined by a stranger walking next to her for five minutes, even knowing that she is accompanied by the person with the camera)
In your role as a Law Commissioner what steps have you taken to get the extensive report of your organisation into the public realm?
Have you considered leaking it, in the public interest and in service to all victims of sexual assaults/rapes who have to turn away from the justice system for various reasons? If not, why not?
What reasons have you been given by the Government and the then Justice minister (Judith Collins) for sitting on the report?
Have you sought its publication from the new Justice Minister (Amy Adams)? If no, why not. If yes, what reasons did she give to not release it?
Have you impressed on the prime Minister the importance of the work your organisation undertook in this area and your strongly held view that it should have been published in the public interest? If not, why not? If yes, what reasons did he give to not publish it?
Do you agree that the report, funded by taxpayers and designed to throw light on a very sad and dark part of NZ society, is being kept from publication?
Would you threaten to resign as a Commissioner if it isn’t immediately released?
Bookmarking this Herald report
Justice Minister Amy Adams said she had not read the report yet…
I hadn’t registered that that corrupt fuck-knuckle is the new Minister of Justice. Puke.
she wont read it until the curia polling suggests she should cafe
This brighter future we presently have for roastbuster types goes hand in hand with the brighter future the national party gifted the alcohol industry when they gutted the recent alcohol law reform.
New Zealand parents should know alcohol is the NUMBER 1 date rape drug by a country mile, and the liquor industry has been busy pushing this drug at teenagers and young females especially
Judith collins in particular sided with the liquor industry and left roastbuster juice like RTDs containing high amounts of alcohol.
At present in NZ we are lead with abuse of power coming from very top
Then factor in our booze culture …. our country spends aprrox $75 million PER WEEK on this drug.
And then add our macho lad rape culture.
It’d actually be a fucking miracle if we did not have roastbusters ……..
Abuse of power ….. booze culture …… rape culture
The prosecution case issues months and years after events (at some party went to and got drunk at and had sex with some guys, not that sure as to the day or place and with whom in particular of those there, as was too drunk).
1. time and place of the offence event.
2. the person to accuse and evidence as to their involvement.
1. educate young people that sex with people unable to deny consent, as they were too drunk, is a form of rape.
2. make it illegal to boast (on line, internet or text) of having sex with anyone under 16
3. make it illegal to discuss the sexual history of anyone else on-line (reduces bullying), not limiting this to just those under 18 protects people of revenge attacks on-line after break ups.
4. make it illegal to pass on naked photos of other people on line, unless authorised to do so.
5. make on-line confession of raping a specific person when they were drunk as equivalent to the confession to a crime.
I don’t think more laws are the answer.
It is attitude, not laws that need to change.
Na, the laws are required. People deserved protection from drunk drivers long before attitudes changed – only laws ensure the basic protection.
Almost all of the above you mentioned is illegal already.
And. Do you really think that attitudes towards drunk driving have changed because of the law?
Not because of the law, teenagers flout almost any law, because they are 10 foot tall and bulletproof at that age.. getting caught, or hurt, is something that happens to someone else.
What has changed is their attitude to drunk driving. Unlike my generation young people think it is just a silly thing to do.
Peer pressure, peer groups like SADD and public dialogue are the things that have made them much less likely to drive drunk than my generation.