Rupert Murdoch on Charlie Hebdo

Written By: - Date published: 8:30 am, January 11th, 2015 - 123 comments
Categories: International, Media, the praiseworthy and the pitiful, uk politics, you couldn't make this shit up - Tags:

As a white bipedal male I wish to apologise for Rupert Murdoch being such a dick head. Maybe most of us are peaceful but until we recognise and destroy growing levels of stupidity within our ranks we must be held responsible.

123 comments on “Rupert Murdoch on Charlie Hebdo ”

  • Comments are now closed

  1. One Anonymous Bloke 1
    11 January 2015 at 8:58 am

    Hate-speech manufacturer with vile business practices turns out to be vile in person. Rocket-science, innit.

  2. The Fairy Godmother 2
    11 January 2015 at 9:01 am

    As a white Christian I wish to apologize for the Christian missionaries who blundered into other cultures and gave them western values including prejudice against homosexuals

  3. appleboy 3
    11 January 2015 at 10:02 am

    So, he would agree then:

    All US military personal should be held accountable for the actions of those at Abu Grab?

    All men should be responsible for rapists.

    Oh, and while we’re at it, how about all newspaper owners take responsibility for their staff who hack the accounts of dead children.

    • saveNZ 3.1
      11 January 2015 at 2:59 pm

      Great Points!

    • AmaKiwi 3.2
      11 January 2015 at 10:27 pm

      The irony is Murdoch’s line is precisely the same as the murderer’s who say, “Western petrol multinationals and the armies of the governments they bribe are the cause of the deaths and impoverishment of hundreds of thousands of Muslims. Therefore we can kill citizens of any of these governments.”

      If you are going to measure the pain and suffering, theirs is much greater than ours.

  4. ghostwhowalksnz 4
    11 January 2015 at 10:06 am

    “They must be held responsible”?

    So you are worried about the 1%- quick look over there

  5. Lucy 5
    11 January 2015 at 10:19 am

    So as a white Australian he is responsible for the attempted genocide of Australia’s first nations people?

  6. Colonial Rawshark 6
    11 January 2015 at 10:48 am

    Glenn Greenwald: very easy to defend free speech denigrating Muslims when you don’t like Islam

    Glenn Greenwald makes a distinction between defending free speech and defending the content of that speech. To him, the value of free speech is only realised when you are willing defend the expression of things that you do not like.

    https://firstlook.org/theintercept/2015/01/09/solidarity-charlie-hebdo-cartoons/

    On another note, I don’t see Murdoch criticising his wealthy friends in the USA for funneling billions of dollars and advanced armaments to the pro-Salafi, pro-Wahabi, pro-Takfiri aristocracy of Saudi Arabia.

    • Bill 6.1
      11 January 2015 at 12:33 pm

      Revealing that no cartoonist felt able to draw up cartoons that mocked Judaism, or iconic Jewish figures for Gleenwalds piece, out of fear for their future career.

  7. RedLogix 7
    11 January 2015 at 11:07 am

    So if Murdoch had said, “Most Americans are peaceful, but until but until they recognize and destroy their growing militarist cancer they must be held responsible.” – would we be cheering him on?

    • weka 7.1
      11 January 2015 at 11:25 am

      USians have the chance to take part in the democracy they live in, so in that sense yes, they could work towards changing foreign policy and how the US military gets employed. Being responsible doesn’t mean blame or absolute control.

      Muslims come from a diverse range of cultures and nations across the globe, so the comparison doesn’t really work. Likewise, they have no control over extremists, it’s not like they vote them out at the next election or join a lobby group to have them change their ways.

      I think some of the comparisons in this thread are off, and missing the point. Redfed’s was on, because he took a group of people (white men) and demonstrated that they have little direct power in relationship to Murdoch. If he’d said he was a white male owner of media globally, or part of the 1% etc, then it might be different. Of course the great irony is that Murdoch himself has responsibilities that he’s denying.

      I think these distinctions are important, and it’s useful to get us talking about responsibility and what it is.

      • Colonial Rawshark 7.1.1
        11 January 2015 at 12:10 pm

        Worth noting the global 1%, let’s say those on $100K pa, or who have a million dollars worth of net assets, are just pitiful middle class ants to people like Murdoch, who is a member of the global 0.0001% (one of the richest 10,000 capitalists in the world, alongside the Gates, Thiels and Bezos of this world).

      • RedLogix 7.1.2
        11 January 2015 at 12:59 pm

        Muslims come from a diverse range of cultures and nations across the globe, so the comparison doesn’t really work.

        Yes I can see that there is a difference between the cases – in one instance we have the worlds most powerful nation and government, in the other we are talking about a cultural phenomenon that encompasses people living everywhere in the world.

        So in one sense I agree – it is unreasonable to demand Muslims everywhere to exercise a non-existent ‘vote’ to change jihadism.

        And it’s perfectly true that the vast majority of ordinary Americans have almost zero influence in the policies of their government. Democracy in the USA is dead. It really is unreasonable to hold them personally accountable for the direct actions of their government.

        But the one thing ordinary Americans and Muslims DO have control over is what they tolerate in their communities. If all the peaceful Americans actually stood up and demanded an end to their governments militarism and imperial adventuring – it would stop. But by their silence or acquiescence ordinary Americans become complicit in enjoying the material advantages of empire – without ever acknowledging or confronting personally its cost.

        So what of ordinary Muslims? There are voices in that community who are appalled and not a little terrified of where the jihadist madness will take them. But if every peaceful Muslim was to stand up and demand an end to it tommorrow – it would.

        • weka 7.1.2.1
          11 January 2015 at 1:20 pm

          “It really is unreasonable to hold them personally accountable too.”

          I wonder if words like responsibility are being used differently here. When I talk about USians having responsibility, I mean that they can act to effect change and have an onus to do so (which is what I think you might be saying too). The fact that their democracy is being eroded makes that more true not less.

          I think if you want to make the argument that Muslims need to take responsibility too, then it’s better to be specifc. Talk about the Muslim communities in Sydney, or Paris. And then talk about what those communities are doing about terrorism. I’m willing to be that they are actually doing quite a lot.

          “But if every peaceful Muslim was to stand up and demand an end to it tommorrow – it would.”

          I don’t believe that. First, because you are still using the global term, you can’t account for all the situations where Muslims are unable to stand up due to fear of their lives, or the fact that they’re not allowed on the street without their husband or father, or they’re living in situations where the West’s problems with terrorism aren’t even on the radar. See the problem with the global generalisation?

          Second, I don’t believe that you can stop extremists with weapons without being willing to die or be hurt or watch your loved ones die or be hurt. Are you really suggesting that it’s ok for the West to ask Muslims globally to do this? (this is a completely different situation than the people in the US find themselves in, although African and Native Americans might beg to differ).

          • RedLogix 7.1.2.1.1
            11 January 2015 at 1:31 pm

            I’m willing to be that they are actually doing quite a lot.

            As indeed it’s not hard to find anti-war USians.

            I don’t believe that.

            When I wrote that I had my doubts as well – for much the reasons you describe.

            I agree that many ordinary Muslims are in an appallingly risky situation if they want to agitate for social change – yet the average Westerner is not really much better off. Any significant or meaningful attempt at peaceful anti-war protest is bound to come at real personal cost. Certainly your job, home and family will be at risk.

            Yes in general there is a difference in the nature of the threat between the two communities here – but it’s a threat that is real and present nonetheless.

            • weka 7.1.2.1.1.1
              11 January 2015 at 1:41 pm

              Not sure where you are going with all that to be honest. And it seems a waste of time to be arguing over the relative difficulties people in various places face in addressing violence, given this whole conversation is about whether Muslims globally are in a position to stop Islamic terrorists.

              • RedLogix …
                11 January 2015 at 1:52 pm

                Most people here would accept that men have a collective responsibility to address male violence – even when they are not personally in a position to do much directly about it.

                Most people here would accept that the American people have a collective responsibility for being complicit in enjoying the advantages of empire – even when they are not personally in a position to do much directly about it.

                Yet somehow ordinary Muslims are – just helpless.

                • weka …
                  11 January 2015 at 2:02 pm

                  1. apply power analysis to those three groupings.

                  2. No-one has said Muslims are helpless (not sure what you mean by ordinary). That’s a redherring you’ve just brought in. Unhelpful framing IMO.

                  3. I’m not going to argue anything while the whole Muslims as one global amorphous mass thing is still on the table. I’ve put up my reasons why I think it’s invalid, and you haven’t refuted them.

                  • RedLogix …
                    11 January 2015 at 2:22 pm

                    1. I did. I clearly pointed out the relative lack of direct personal power over the specific issue involved.

                    As an individual male I have almost zero direct influence over male violence. If I hear yelling and banging in the next unit I will – and have done so recently – act. Beyond that I’m helpless.

                    As an individual American citizen attempting to directly confront the US imperial war machine is even more hopeless.

                    As an individual Muslim confronting jihadism – well if a family member looks like taking an unplanned trip or otherwise becoming radicalised – I can intervene maybe.

                    But in all three cases – if an entire community of peaceful individuals stands up – a different outcome is possible. The power balance changes.

                    2. given this whole conversation is about whether Muslims globally are in a position to stop Islamic terrorists.

                    Did I read that incorrectly? I assumed you were arguing they were not – maybe you do think they are in a position to stop global terrorism. If so that rather confuses me.

                    3. Because jihadists do not arise in a vacuum. They spring from a global community. Tens of thousands of fighters have poured into Iraq to fight for ISIS from all over the world.

                    • weka …
                      11 January 2015 at 2:41 pm

                      1. “I clearly pointed out the relative lack of direct personal power over the specific issue involved.”

                      That’s not what I meant, as I am sure you know.

                      2. Murdoch argues Muslims are globally responsible, I argue they’re not. The whole conversation is based on the idea of Muslims as a global force.

                      3 “Because jihadists do not arise in a vacuum. They spring from a global community. Tens of thousands of fighters have poured into Iraq to fight for ISIS from all over the world.”

                      That doesn’t really have relate to what we are talking about though. If you want to make the case for how Muslims are a global culture with global responsibilities, please do so. I’d also like to see the argument for them being a kind of hive mind where Muslims from different countries or different branches of Islam have the same ideas and responsibilities re terrorism.

                    • RedLogix …
                      11 January 2015 at 2:52 pm

                      1. That’s not what I meant, as I am sure you know.

                      Well obviously not. Now would be a great moment to explain.

                      2. Islam is present in most countries of the world. Makes it pretty damned global to me.

                      What is more the stated goal of ISIS (however fanciful we imagine it to be) is to establish a global Caliphate and impose sharia law everywhere.

                      3. Muslims are no more a hive mind than any other group, yet by the very act of belonging (or choosing to remain in) that group they nonetheless assume some responsibility for the choices of that group.

                      If for instance I worked for a company – where the directors announced some policy I was ethically challenged by – I would have the choice of resigning or remaining and being held accountable for my choice. Would I not?

                      Real life for instance. While we were moving to Australia I was offered a brilliant job – had my name written all over it – and it paid fabulously. In the coal industry.

                      Turned it down. If I hadn’t what could have I said about global warming ever again?

                      PS: Yes I am aware that I had the personal luxury of the option to turn it down. But nonetheless the pay and conditions were way better than my present role.

                    • weka …
                      11 January 2015 at 3:09 pm

                      Please explain how Muslims are a ‘group’ globally (as opposed to being a whole range of groups that vary hugely). Or explain how Muslims globally are a group like a nation is, or a workplace is.

                      And then explain how a 15 yr old girl in a Taliban controlled part of Afghanistan can resign from being a Muslim.

                      I think you also just argued that Muslims can end terrorism by stopping being Muslims. I’m not even going to comment on that.

                    • RedLogix …
                      11 January 2015 at 3:23 pm

                      1. Because Islam is indeed a far more unified religion that Christianity. At one time I was told that you could count more than 2000 distinct sects of Christianity – spanning a wide range of interpretations.

                      The important point is that while there are many shades of interpretation within Islam, from medieval fundamentalism, to the rather metaphysical and abstract – they do all point to a very common community understanding. They themselves will clearly identify Islam as a single religion and a coherent global community – regardless of their national and cultural identities.

                      Perhaps it’s valid to compare Islam with Catholicism in this respect – both widely distributed globally, with many diverse communities – but nonetheless very clearly united by the Vatican.

                      2. That is why we do not hold children responsible for the actions of their elders.

                      3. Yet if I HAD taken that job and was faffing on at length about the evils of fossil fuels – and THEN announced I was working for a coal mine – what is the word you would use to cover that off?

                    • Psycho Milt …
                      11 January 2015 at 3:35 pm

                      And then explain how a 15 yr old girl in a Taliban controlled part of Afghanistan can resign from being a Muslim.

                      Or a 15-year-old raised as a Muslim in any Muslim-dominated country, for that matter. That’s one reason it’s a totalitarian ideology that deserves no respect whatsoever.

                    • weka …
                      11 January 2015 at 3:41 pm

                      1a. What’s the overarching organisation of Islam that means that Muslims can act from a unified whole?

                      1b. How do poor rural Catholics in South America have a say in what the Vatican does?

                      1c. How would poor rural Catholics in SA rejecting Catholicism change what the Vatican does?

                      1d. Citation needed for the Muslim world not being extremely diverse. Think culture and nationality if you can’t manage it religiously (although I’m pretty sure it’s religious too).

                      2. deliberately avoiding the point. Pick an age that means you can answer it directly.

                      3. your comparison is at best specious, at worst willfully ignorant. Not willing to argue over it.

                    • phillip ure …
                      11 January 2015 at 6:04 pm

                      @ red logix..

                      :..Because Islam is indeed a far more unified religion that Christianity..”

                      that one was too much of a screamer to just let it slide by..

                      ..heard of the iran/iraq war..?..a.k.a…the great sunni/shia war..?

                      ..u do know that the reason baghdad/iraq is riven by sectarian conflict..is because the americans favoured one group over the other..

                      ..i mean..seriously..!

                      ..both religions are riven with histories of different sects doing terrible things to each other..

                    • RedLogix …
                      11 January 2015 at 6:30 pm

                      @ pu

                      heard of the iran/iraq war..?..a.k.a…the great sunni/shia war..?

                      Yes – any single concise blog comment will always omit an aspect to be screamed at.

                      Historically the division between Sunni and Shi’ite stems right back to the question of who was the legitimate successor to Mohammed – a mistake that was made literally at the moments He was on his death-bed.

                      The actual details of the events are a fascinating story of confusion and human frailty. A quick look here outlines some of the story:

                      “Why has there been such a long and protracted disagreement and tension between these two sects?” asks Ray Takeyh, author of Hidden Iran: Paradox and Power in the Islamic Republic. “It has to do with political power.”

                      http://www.npr.org/blogs/parallels/2007/02/12/7332087/the-origins-of-the-shiite-sunni-split

                      It’s been explained to me that it’s way less of a religious division (the two groups basically agree on very similar theologies) and more of a political, cultural one.

                    • Colonial Rawshark …
                      11 January 2015 at 6:49 pm

                      With the Wahabi/Salafi extremist end of Sunni Islam gaining massive traction and funding during the 20th century thanks to the USA and other western support for Saudi Arabia and other dictatorial Middle Eastern regimes.

    • Ad 7.2
      11 January 2015 at 12:28 pm

      President Eisenhower would be.

      • Colonial Rawshark 7.2.1
        11 January 2015 at 12:31 pm

        Only at the end, when he realised what a monster was being established. Carter too. But again, only at the end.

    • Psycho Milt 7.3
      11 January 2015 at 2:22 pm

      So if Murdoch had said, “Most Americans are peaceful, but until but until they recognize and destroy their growing militarist cancer they must be held responsible.” – would we be cheering him on?

      Well, I wouldn’t, but I suspect a significant proportion of the Standard’s readers would.

      Murdoch is a well-known shithead, and collective responsibility is as crap a concept as collective punishment. That said, these guys were motivated by Islam as an ideology, so Muslims do need to be having a good look at their ideology. It’s a very unpleasant one.

      I know the vast, overwhelming majority of Muslims are content to just ignore all the stuff about whose necks they should be smiting and just work with the less-obnoxious stuff about prayers and fasting and giving to charity, but that doesn’t alter the fact their ideology promotes it. There were plenty of fascists content to ignore the stuff about Jews and just work with the less-obnoxious stuff about national unity and pride, and no end of communists content to ignore the stuff about armed overthrow of the state and just work with the less-obnoxious stuff about helping the working class, but the fact that they were very nice people you’d be happy to have as neighbours didn’t alter the fact they were endorsing and promoting unsavoury totalitarian ideologies. There may have been nothing they could have done about Hitler/Stalin and it would have been wrong to hold them responsible, but let’s not pretend they’d made great choices about what to support.

      • RedLogix 7.3.1
        11 January 2015 at 2:45 pm

        and collective responsibility is as crap a concept as collective punishment. That said, these guys were motivated by Islam as an ideology, so Muslims do need to be having a good look at their ideology.

        Is there not a contradiction between those two sentences? I know the two statements seem different in your mind – but consider this. What if Muslims did NOT take a good look at their ideology? What if they quietly cheered on the jihadists, or at least effectively did so by passively enabling them? Would you not hold them collectively responsible then?

        Which indeed you have effectively argued for in your last paragraph. There you seem to make a very eloquent case for collective responsibility.

        • Psycho Milt 7.3.1.1
          11 January 2015 at 3:28 pm

          I think there is a difference. If you were a fascist or communist living in NZ in the late 1930s, your personal responsibility for what Hitler or Stalin got up to, and your ability to influence what they got up to, was non-existent. It would be nuts to say you fell under some kind of collective responsibility for their actions, but at the same time your fellow citizens would have been entitled to tell you freely and frankly that no they weren’t going to respect your murderous totalitarian ideology.

          What if Muslims did NOT take a good look at their ideology? What if they quietly cheered on the jihadists, or at least effectively did so by passively enabling them? Would you not hold them collectively responsible then?

          Sticking with my analogy, western socialism in 1940 was full of people finding all kinds of reasons why it was right for the USSR to help the fascists and to invade Poland etc. They were individually responsible for their personal stupidity in supporting a totalitarian ideology, but they weren’t responsible in a collective sense for the USSR’s actions.

          • RedLogix 7.3.1.1.1
            11 January 2015 at 3:45 pm

            All fine points.

            But if enough Germans in the 1930’s had told Mr H to fuck off – history might have taken a different turn. But they didn’t because frankly it would have been difficult and risky to do so.

            Same with the hard-lefties in the 1940’s – admitting that Stalin had betrayed their ideals was an admission of defeat and a loss of face among their friends and peers. Different sort of threat – but real to them all the same.

            Fact is – effectively challenging any group dynamic is risky. Question is – who is willing to pay that price and who is not?

            That divides the sheep from the goats.

            • Colonial Rawshark 7.3.1.1.1.1
              11 January 2015 at 3:59 pm

              But if enough Germans in the 1930’s had told Mr H to fuck off – history might have taken a different turn.

              And even later, there were opportunities to change course. Most of the Wehrmacht generals realised by the start of the second half of 1943 that Hitler was well on the way to destroying their nation. They should have immediately withdrawn from France and the USSR, and sued for peace. That would have been the logical, rational thing to do.

              But societies which are neck deep in their current endeavours do not do the logical or rational thing.

              • RedLogix …
                11 January 2015 at 4:13 pm

                And then afterwards came the accountability – the Nuremberg Trials.

                Not to mention the 15% or so of Germans no longer alive at the end of it all.

              • AmaKiwi …
                11 January 2015 at 10:33 pm

                Don’t underestimate the power of a totalitarian regime. If you object, you die in silence.

  8. Scottie 8
    11 January 2015 at 11:25 am

    Alarming to think someone with such influence on world media has such opinions. The damage and hate opinions like this foster is unthinkable.

  9. weka 9
    11 January 2015 at 11:34 am

    via twitter,

    Justin Lewis ‏@Mumbler3 10 hrs10 hours ago
    Reminder that Dennis Potter named his cancer ‘Rupert’ after Murdoch.

  10. joe90 10
    11 January 2015 at 11:38 am

    heh

    Mr Denmore ‏@MrDenmore

    Perhaps Rupert should raise that with Saudi Prince Alwaleed Bin Talal, his 2nd largest voting shareholder?

    https://twitter.com/MrDenmore/status/553819719287853057

  11. Matthew Hooton 11
    11 January 2015 at 12:42 pm

    He is only using the same logic as those who believe in “rape culture” and who mock those who argue that not all men are rapists.

    “Maybe most men aren’t rapists but until they recognise and destroy the rapist cancer they must be held responsible (and apologise for being men).”

    Personally I don’t really believe in collective guilt and blame. But those who defended the “logic” of David Cunliffe’s “apology” will, I assume, agree with what Murdoch is saying here.

    • weka 11.1
      11 January 2015 at 12:52 pm

      :sigh: Rape analogies rarely work.

      Please tell us who exactly believes in rape culture and mocks people who argue not all men are rapists. Be specific.

      I’d also like some evidence for those that say ‘men must be held responsible’. Just so I know what the fuck you are actually talking about rather than trying to make sense of your obvious passive aggressive agenda about rape culture.

      In this case, it also fails because while men, in general (let’s say NZ men for simplicity’s sake), come into direct contact with rapists, and are part of the culture that sanctions rape, therefore can have some input into whether rape continues or not in our society, most Muslims don’t have contact with extremists and psychopaths that misuse Islam for their own fundamentalist agendas.

      “Personally I don’t really believe in collective guilt and blame”

      Neither do I (and I’d hazard a guess that DC doesn’t either), but thanks for dropping these off-topic, sensationalist and triggering strawpeople into a discussion that is already pretty fraught and difficult enough 🙄

      • Matthew Hooton 11.1.1
        11 January 2015 at 12:59 pm

        Go to twitter, search for #NotAllMen

        • Te Reo Putake 11.1.1.1
          11 January 2015 at 1:13 pm

          Alternatively, why don’t you just answer the questions weka put to you, Matthew. Or do you just not have any answers?

          • weka 11.1.1.1.1
            11 January 2015 at 1:28 pm

            Why have answers when you can have a misleading agenda instead,

            https://twitter.com/MatthewHootonNZ/status/552874963246403585

            • weka 11.1.1.1.1.1
              11 January 2015 at 1:30 pm

              Btw Matthew, what the difference between men and Muslims?

              • RedLogix …
                11 January 2015 at 1:37 pm

                While there are obviously different things, in this context we are talking about identifiable groups of humans who have some members with problematic behaviours. In the light of Murdoch’s tweet we are thinking about the nature of the collective group’s responsibility to address those behaviours.

                (As a bit of a tangent, it’s worth noting that one of the Paris criminals still being sought after last I looked, is a woman.)

                • weka …
                  11 January 2015 at 1:43 pm

                  Apply power analysis and you might see what I was getting at.

                  “(As a bit of a tangent, it’s worth noting that one of the Paris criminals still being sought after last I looked, is a woman.)”

                  Why is that worth noting?

        • One Anonymous Bloke 11.1.1.2
          11 January 2015 at 1:20 pm

          Cunliffe articulates his feeling of personal responsibility for male violence against women. Hooton feigns horror and creates false equivalence.

          Discuss.

        • RedLogix 11.1.1.3
          11 January 2015 at 1:22 pm

          Which takes us back to a familiar spot does it not?

          While on one hand we reject collective guilt and blame, while on the other we can recognise a collective responsibility for what we tolerate in our communities.

          I raised the same argument above using the slightly less emotionally loaded issue of American imperial militarism.

          In that case an argument can be made that ‘ordinary peaceful’ Americans are nonetheless complicit because by their silence they still get to enjoy the material advantages of imperialism – the USA still being the richest country and all.

          It’s harder to see what advantages non-rapey males gain by being silent in the face of violence against women. That’s a whole other can of really long worms – but many women have made the case that male silence bolsters and reaffirms the patriarchal power structures that benefit them in other ways.

          The point is of course – where does collective guilt stop and collective responsibility start? And where does passive complicity fit in?

          • Matthew Hooton 11.1.1.3.1
            11 January 2015 at 2:03 pm

            That’s a more thoughtful response to my comment that others. I just never saw that David Cunliffe had any personal responsibility, let alone guilt, for violence against women, just as I don’t see that the overwhelming majority of Muslims, including those close to me, have any responsibility for 9/11, Bali, 7/7 or Paris. But I also think it is wrong to say the Koran and Islam have nothing to do with those events (just as rape obviously has something to do with the perpetrator being male). But it is inaccurate, in my view, and even morally reprehensible to start expanding responsibility, guilt, blame etc from the terrorists or rapists to other Muslims and other men. It is interesting that two parallel debates have erupted on the blogs over the last year, and those who backed Cunliffe now tend to be saying Not All Mulsims whereas those who said “Not All Men” tend to be saying something like “Yes, All Mulsims”.

            • rhinocrates 11.1.1.3.1.1
              11 January 2015 at 2:09 pm

              Cite please.

            • RedLogix 11.1.1.3.1.2
              11 January 2015 at 2:10 pm

              Agreed this has always been a tricky debate.

              mac1 below makes a really useful distinction:

              When Rupert Murdoch – a non-Muslim – attempts to assign collective guilt onto all Muslims, we instantly recognise that as problematic.

              If a prominent Islamic clergyman stood up and said exactly the same thing – we might well applaud it.

              (And effectively this is what DC was doing too – but as a potential leader of the nation it came with a whole cartload of baggage which buried him.)

              • rhinocrates …
                11 January 2015 at 2:51 pm

                That baggage was deliberately thrown upon him by Hoots, Farrar, Key et al who were happy to trivialise discussion of rape and domestic abuse for immediate political advantage.

                • Colonial Rawshark …
                  11 January 2015 at 4:02 pm

                  Apologies in politics are very risky things. Basically, Cunliffe should never have gone anywhere near the statement, the statement was (and remains) out of touch with the mood of most NZers.

                  • rhinocrates …
                    11 January 2015 at 4:10 pm

                    I must admit that I facepalmed over it – he walked right into a trap there. We often use the sporting analogy of “letting the side down” and everyone agrees that there is indeed a team of which we are all a part. It could so easily have been phrased along the lines of “there are men who fill me with shame to be associated with them, but then I ask myself, as we should all ask ourselves, ‘what can we do to make sure that they know that they cannot do this, how can we as men show them what it is to be a good man?’ “

                    • Colonial Rawshark …
                      11 January 2015 at 4:21 pm

                      Sigh, if only you had been the one writing the speeches in the Leaders Office.

                    • Murray Rawshark …
                      11 January 2015 at 11:44 pm

                      Yep, he could have got his message across a lot better. On the other hand, if Tories were honest and interested in the actual issues, Cunliffe may have done OK with his apology. I think he’s a bit of an idealist and didn’t realise the filth he was up against. So much for McCarten being the great political street fighter – he certainly didn’t seem to have any effect on the campaign.

                      Yet when an Imam or a Sheikh stands up and says sorry for what extremists are doing, the same people who rubbished Cunliffe will say what reasonable people they are, not like most Muslims.

            • weka 11.1.1.3.1.3
              11 January 2015 at 2:45 pm

              “But it is inaccurate, in my view, and even morally reprehensible to start expanding responsibility, guilt, blame etc from the terrorists or rapists to other Muslims and other men.”

              You are conflating responsibility with guilt/blame. That’s you basically contaminating the debate. If you don’t want to feel guilty, great. But don’t assign your process to other people’s politics when you are clearly misrepresenting them.

              “It is interesting that two parallel debates have erupted on the blogs over the last year, and those who backed Cunliffe now tend to be saying Not All Mulsims whereas those who said “Not All Men” tend to be saying something like “Yes, All Mulsims”.”

              What’s the difference between men and Muslims? How are the politics different?

            • phillip ure 11.1.1.3.1.4
              11 January 2015 at 6:13 pm

              “..It is interesting that two parallel debates have erupted on the blogs over the last year, and those who backed Cunliffe now tend to be saying Not All Mulsims whereas those who said “Not All Men” tend to be saying something like “Yes, All Mulsims”…”

              a considered/intelligent..seeming spin-free..comment/observation from hooton..

              ..knock me over with a bloody feather..

              ..i have been posessed by the evil sprite that lives in mike williams/.

              ..and am forced to say:..’i agree with matthew’..

              ..and tho’ that pattern is not surprising..

              ..that u chose to highlight it..is

              • Murray Rawshark …
                11 January 2015 at 11:50 pm

                It’s not a balanced comment at all. Those who say “Not all men” are almost all men. There is a strong possibility that those who say “Yes, all Muslims” are not 100% Muslims. The difference is brutal and I’m surprised it wasn’t more obvious to you, Phil. I’m pretty sure weka saw it, or she wouldn’t have asked her question What’s the difference between men and Muslims? How are the politics different?”

    • rhinocrates 11.2
      11 January 2015 at 1:57 pm

      Interesting. Effluvium does or did PR for a wife-beater Liu. Hoots was happy to take paycheques from him and look the other way. That says enough about his views on misogyny and “responsibility”.

      Adittionally, Hoots, you’ve obviously been returning to the Standard, so you’ve seen questions about your responsibility in a (thankfully incompetent) conspiracy to murder or at least ensure an attack on Nicky Hager, so Mr Responsibility, here is an excellent opportunity to answer a question.

      Seems you’re running from a lot of questions you fucking coward.

    • Olwyn 11.3
      11 January 2015 at 4:22 pm

      It is not quite the same – those who argue about rape culture tend to be members of the same culture, and are either defending some aspect of the status quo or advocating change. Whereas I can’t think what reason the Islamic community would have for heeding Murdoch’s advice at all. If you are Islamic and live in another culture it behoves you to obey its laws, or face the consequences if you do not. The same for anyone else living in a culture that differs from their own. At the same time, if a group of people sees you as their enemy, you have to work out how best to deal with that, but you are unlikely to lap up their advice from such a position. The world is simply not the play-mobile set of white know-alls.

      • One Anonymous Bloke 11.3.1
        11 January 2015 at 5:00 pm

        If you are Islamic and live in another culture it behoves you to obey its laws, or face the consequences if you do not. The same for anyone else living in a culture that differs from their own.

        Where does that leave the UDoHR?

        If I live in a culture that differs from my own and by doing so abuses human rights (John Key’s New Zealand, for example), it behoves me to change it.

        • Olwyn 11.3.1.1
          11 January 2015 at 5:21 pm

          In which case you face the consequences, should there be consequences. Even in trying to bring about cultural change you cannot afford to be presumptuous.

          • One Anonymous Bloke 11.3.1.1.1
            11 January 2015 at 6:58 pm

            Meanwhile, well-financed spin merchants are busy trying to dismantle culture altogether. Perhaps what we can’t afford to be is timid.

    • Stephanie Rodgers 11.4
      11 January 2015 at 5:51 pm

      Rape culture is a well-documented phenomenon which has been used by historians, political scientists, psychologists and sociologists for nearly 50 years.
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rape_culture

      But don’t let the truth get in the way of a good piece of rightwing propaganda.

    • Murray Rawshark 11.5
      11 January 2015 at 11:25 pm

      Not your best effort there, bro.
      There’s a difference between men fighting to change the culture around sex and all men being sentenced to prison for a rape committed by one. Murdoch’s proposal would have made the butchers of Lidice happy. Collective punishment is rejected by most Kiwi jurists, even though it’s common when you’re a guest of Corrections.

  12. mac1 12
    11 January 2015 at 1:32 pm

    “Maybe most Moslems peaceful, but until they recognize and destroy their growing jihadist cancer they must be held responsible.”

    The problem I have with this statement is the use of the third person plural. This is the classic language usage of the blamer, the excluder, the vengeance seeker be it through war or the justice system.

    “Maybe we are mostly peaceful, but until we recognize and destroy our growing cancer of inequality we must be held responsible.”

    That statement works for me.

    So does this one. “Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother’s eye.” Now, who said that?

    • weka 12.1
      11 January 2015 at 1:44 pm

      Good points.

    • RedLogix 12.2
      11 January 2015 at 1:53 pm

      Agreed. The framing difference is subtle – but powerful all the same. Thanks.

    • mac1 12.3
      11 January 2015 at 3:02 pm

      Actually, Christ’s statement really is judgemental. For me, a more powerful statement
      is ” I am hypocritical if I attempt to remove the mote from my brother’s eye before I remove the beam from my own” or more simply and less pointedly, “I should remove my own beam before I attempt to remove the mote in my brother’s eye.”

      The other reason why I like this beam/mote analogy, is the realisation that our own prejudices are bigger than the ones we see in others, our own violence is bigger than some other’s, our own world view skews problems to seem that way where the other is at more fault than are we.

    • Murray Rawshark 12.4
      11 January 2015 at 11:54 pm

      So does this one. “Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother’s eye.” Now, who said that?

      I’m pretty sure it was one of the earlier prophets, before Mohammed.

      • mac1 12.4.1
        12 January 2015 at 9:06 am

        Nice reply, Murray Rawshark, to state a non-Christ-centred point of view.

        My use of ‘our’ favourite prophet is of course to point out to people from our Christian culture that Christ was very hard on hypocrisy and blame, as Rupert Murdoch illustrated.

        France today declared Paris the ‘capital of the world’, as if it never had not been….. Presidents and PMs talked about democracy and tolerance, and linked arms. All well and good, but there’s quite a bit of timber in their eyes to be removed before a claim of hypocrisy can be plausibly denied.

    • mac1 12.5
      12 January 2015 at 10:45 pm

      Thanks, Weka and Redlogic.

      One of my former students posted on Facebook this article cited below from the Guardian in December 2014, which reinforces my comment about the “growing cancer of inequality.”

      http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/dec/12/how-new-zealands-rich-poor-divide-killed-its-egalitarian-paradise

  13. rhinocrates 13
    11 January 2015 at 2:17 pm

    To say that Hoots is being disingenuous or a hypocrite is redundant (when is he not?), but it is interesting to see what a raw nerve a term like “rape culture” touches and the reaction it engenders. So much so that the likes of Hoots will cynically use a terrorist atrocity in their own defensive argument.

    It’s rather sickening to trivialise the killings in that way.

    Anyway, Rape Culture and the fallacious “Not all men” argument (appropriately) deconstructed in a cartoon here:

    http://pepperonideluxe.tumblr.com/post/101061454652/a-comic-about-seagulls-if-you-feel-like-this

    And since Hoots only accepts PERSONAL responsibility, is it a bad thing to incite or solicit the killing of someone because of what they publish? There’s a simple question and dear Hoots, you have first-hand experience of such a case of responsibility.

    Please explain your feelings on this.

  14. rhinocrates 14
    11 January 2015 at 2:26 pm

    Come on Hoots, it’s a very simple and pertinent question.

    Maybe I couldn’t hear your answer over the sound of crickets.

    Is it an evil thing to kill or solicit the killing of people who publish what you do not like?

  15. vto 15
    11 January 2015 at 3:08 pm

    This certainly brings the comparison with the principle that all men have some responsibility for mens violence because they are men…. as some have pointed above

    Always amusing to see the pinhead dancing and hair-splitting when a principle’s consistent application leads to undesired outcomes..

    There is also of course another significant factor to toss into the mix of this issue and that is the existence of choice as to membership of these groups (men and islam). Men cannot choose whether they are responsible for mens violence (via membership principle) whereas muslims can choose whether are responsible for muslim violence (via membership principle) …. and that is simply not reasonable at all. My ancestors fought to remove any faecal detritus of birthright, be it right or obligation….. they sailed the oceans to escape birthright.

    And here are some wankers trying to impose birthright on us again? …. piss right off back to the dark ages please

    • weka 15.1
      11 January 2015 at 3:14 pm

      Love to see you answer my question to Red above: how can a 15yr old girl in Taliban controlled Afghanistan resign from being a Muslim?

      • vto 15.1.1
        11 January 2015 at 3:23 pm

        I saw that. The problem comes in reconciling your point there and the principle thing of course, but it is easily solved methinks …… the principles thing is high level and the example thing is an application example. They are two different questions. One – what is the principle behind it; and two – how does that get applied ‘on the ground’.

        Clearly under the example you provide it would be nigh impossible..

        However for example a new convert in a western nation should have a complete choice ..

        I prefer to argue principles and leave their application to later …………. more fun and easier ..

        • weka 15.1.1.1
          11 January 2015 at 3:31 pm

          Also extremely prejudicial.

          I am also pretty sure there are plenty of examples in the West where stopping being a Muslim is not the easy thing you make out. Consider if it means losing ones family or community. Or where one is married to a Muslim and has Muslim kids.

          Then consider that being Muslim is not just about religion it’s also about culture.

          This whole line is fucked anyway, because it assumes or implies that if non-violent Muslims stopped being Muslims then Islamic terrorism would also cease. Which is probably the most ridiculous thing I’ve seen on ts is a long time.

          • vto 15.1.1.1.1
            11 January 2015 at 3:41 pm

            Well perhaps not but I know what you mean. Your view though is still born of trying to marry together the principle with its application …. try not

            Imo the principle thing remains – the imposition of rights and obligations by way of birth is not something that sits at all well with that part of NZ that places egalitereanism in a prominent place, does it.

            How many people in the world I wonder, would rather have been born without any obligation or the like imposed on them because of their birth? I know an awful lot of women have been wanting that for some considerable time …. so why is it now appropriate weka?

            • weka 15.1.1.1.1.1
              11 January 2015 at 3:46 pm

              I have no problem whatsoever with being born into a family that was Anglican.

              Not sure what you mean about women. Or why we are even having this conversation. Is it related to the post?

              • vto …
                11 January 2015 at 3:52 pm

                subtle in avoidance

                • weka …
                  11 January 2015 at 3:53 pm

                  You’d have to be more specific. I don’t actually understand what you are talking about or how this relates to the post. I think you could be more clear.

                  • vto …
                    11 January 2015 at 3:58 pm

                    birthright and birthobligation and their consideration in the application of the collective responsibility principle ….. particular sample groups being men and muslims ….

                    but you have just raised a doubt in my mind as to whether you are being genuine in your ‘I don’t follow’ response’ …

      • RedLogix 15.1.2
        11 January 2015 at 3:31 pm

        Well I did answer above. Any 15 yr old girl has almost zero power in any situation like that – she is still virtually a child.

        Made worse within the Islamic community by the very real and oppressive ‘honour culture’ that is deeply entwined with it and hugely impacts on the rights of women of any age to act with agency.

        Made worse again by the fact that anyone who recants their belief or leaves the faith is regarded as an apostate. Under clear traditional law this was punishable by death. And usually was. In modern conditions I’m less clear how this works – but it’s still considered a very, very serious matter that WILL have a big impact on a person’s life. Especially their family.

        Given that practical options for anyone stopping being a Muslim are very limited indeed – does this entirely absolve them from anything that is done in the name of their Faith?

        • weka 15.1.2.1
          11 January 2015 at 3:34 pm

          I stopped going to church when I was 11. I stopped believing in god when I was 13. I did so publicly. Virtually zero negative consequences for me.

          I see you avoiding answering the points I am making.

          • RedLogix 15.1.2.1.1
            11 January 2015 at 3:36 pm

            Yes – Christianity is quite different in that respect. Well some of it.

            My partner has not spoken at all to her nutjob fundie Catholic father for over 30 yrs on much the same grounds. I can assure you the consequences have been distinctly non-zero.

            • weka 15.1.2.1.1.1
              11 January 2015 at 3:47 pm

              Still avoiding the points I am making. You said it was someting to do with age, I demonstrated that that’s not a given.

          • RedLogix 15.1.2.1.2
            11 January 2015 at 3:47 pm

            I see you avoiding answering the points I am making.

            Sorry – exactly what answer did you want? Because I’ve tried very hard to respond to your each and every point in detail.

            • weka 15.1.2.1.2.1
              11 January 2015 at 3:51 pm

              1. In response to your idea that Muslims can resign from Islam and being Muslim in the way that you can make choices about which job you take, I gave an example of a woman in Afghanistan. Instead of replying to the point (that many Muslims can’t resign), you focussed on the age of the person as if that somehow was relevant.

              2. When I point out how age isn’t relevant, you don’t respond to that point, but instead talk about Christianity as if that makes it different.

              • vto …
                11 January 2015 at 3:55 pm

                The example isn’t overly helpful to the issue of whether the collective responsibility principle is applicable amongst humankinds peoples

              • RedLogix …
                11 January 2015 at 4:07 pm

                Oh – of course the two cases are not exactly identical in terms of a practical response.

                In one case the correct response was resigning from (or not accepting) the job. It would have been hopelessly hypocritical of me if I had. Fortunately I had the luxury of being able to choose not to take it – at only the personal cost of about $100k of annual income.

                On the other hand – for reasons I’ve detailed above- given the option to resign or stop being a Muslim is very limited for the vast majority – then some other course of action is required if they find themselves in ethical conflict with what some people are doing in it’s name.

                Otherwise by their silence they become complicit. Doing nothing does not make the ethical problem go away.

                Just arguing that only a few extremists are taking up guns in the name of Islam doesn’t really work. For instance – we get upset when the NZ Super fund – something that represents symbolically the whole of NZ – invests in tobacco or armaments. They may only be a tiny fraction of it’s total portfolio – but we recognise the ethical problem all the same. We don’t want to be associated and we speak out.

                • weka …
                  11 January 2015 at 5:30 pm

                  Maybe someone else can make sense of that, because I can’t.

                  Why are you assuming that Muslims aren’t doing something about terrorism?

                  • RedLogix …
                    11 January 2015 at 6:26 pm

                    Why are you assuming that?

                    All I said is that doing nothing was not an ethical option. Muslims understand ethics much as we do – and many of them do indeed take action. Often at considerable personal risk.

                    And as rhino below expands on – the largest group of victims of Islamic extremists have been other Muslims.

                    Just because I say “A is true” does not mean that I am also saying “B must be false”. That’s called binary thinking and it’s a weirdly unhelpful habit.

                    • weka …
                      11 January 2015 at 6:29 pm

                      ok, well I now have no idea what this conversation is about at all. Your analogies make no sense to me. The only clear thing I’ve got is that you seem to think that Muslims could resign from being Muslim and that this would stop terrorism.

                    • RedLogix …
                      11 January 2015 at 6:39 pm

                      The only clear thing I’ve got is that you seem to think that Muslims could resign from being Muslim and that this would stop terrorism.

                      Which is the one thing I have clearly stated is not a practical option for most Muslims. I even detailed the reasons why.

                • marty mars …
                  11 January 2015 at 6:18 pm

                  Red what do you believe or not believe in? Say you are atheist and someone of that belief system commits mass murder, and others around the world who are also atheist commit other atrocities and murder. If that creates an ethical issue for you what do you do about it? Resign from atheism, stay silent, protest…

                  To me it is the same thing as you are describing above.

                  You had choices in the job situation but you do realise that others have fewer choices and some are in the position that they effectively have no choice – you say a muslim should try some other course of action – like what?

                  The thing is imo we all live with ‘ethical problems’ every day, every hour and every minute – our middle class lifestyles have stripped the planet yet we still go on even when we know the truth of our excesses – we do it and for a nanosecond feel bad, then we do it again. If we have ethical issues with our ‘group’ as described in this way what should we do? Resign from the middle class, protest, stay silent… or…

                  • RedLogix …
                    11 January 2015 at 6:52 pm

                    I appreciate the atheist argument as far as it goes. But it leaves out a couple of important things.

                    At the moment there is no official ‘church’ of atheism. No formal institutions to belong to, no-one to formulate an ideologies, policies and rules.

                    So if one nutter atheist somewhere in the world commits mass murder then yes it’s unreasonable to hold all the others responsible. The community of atheists is simply too loose and ill-defined to make such a thing possible. Most atheists would never dream of belonging to anything.

                    But religions in general are far more institutional and powerful than this. They do wield considerable power and authority over their members – and they in turn strongly identify not just with the idea of the religion – but actively support it’s earthly goals and actions. I would argue that does place a moral burden on its members to speak out about ethical abuses committed in the name of that religion. Wherever they happen.

    • Leonor 15.2
      11 January 2015 at 3:32 pm

      All people (men and woman) have an individual responsibility and a collective responsibility for everything that is unjust.
      People may not have time to be a part of ‘all’ collective responsibilities physically, but to have an opinion and/or good ‘intent’ is just as valid, any change is good- external or internal. A person’s opinion or intent can influence, therefore change can occur, through one person, or millions.

      If we live on this planet we are all responsible for it and what takes place on it. Period.

    • rhinocrates 15.3
      11 January 2015 at 3:56 pm

      Sorry VTO, this is not aimed at you personally, but is intended to make some distinctions that are more than just hair-splitting.

      The “not all men” argument is criticised because it is so obviously defensive with the subtext of “you are being unfair and therefore I am a victim of your accusation, waaah!” and is repeatedly used as a diversionary tactic to close down discussion of rape.

      It’s rather hypocritical too – on one hand, one who says “not all men” tries to separate themselves from men who are rapists but then wails that discussion of rape unfairly victimises men as a group.

      Instead, look at the connection rather than the difference between sins of omission and sins of commission. It is a sin of commission to rape, but it is a sin of omission to do nothing when one could prevent an atrocity or to tacitly facilitate it. For example, Farrar is not guilty of rape, but he thinks that it’s a jolly lark to go to fancy dress “Princess Parties dressed as infamous serial rapists and happily associates with correspondents who overtly boast of their intention of stupefying and raping teenage girls. He personally is not guilty of an individual rape, yet he supports a culture in which it occurs and in my opinion is morally culpable through his passivity when he could act to prevent it.

      I suggest you look at Pastor Niemoller’s famous poem that begins “First they came for…”

      When you hear about rape culture, it’s narcissistic to say that you are being lumped in with rapists. It’s indeed not about all men, but it’s aimed to provoke men to think about how, unknowingly, passively, tacitly they turn the other way. To cry “not all men, not ME” is to obscure the point. I’m not a rapist, I know that nobody ever said I was, so “not all men” is a red herring. I do have a responsibility not to look the other way however, and that is the true point being made.

      Think, as a man, about “us”. Maybe David Cunliffe should have said “Sometimes I feel ashamed to be a man because fellow men rape, what can we as men do to stop it?” Maybe you don’t laugh at the rape joke in the pub, maybe you don’t congratulate a man on his masculinity for forcing a woman, maybe you hear someone say “When she says no, she means yes” and instead of remaining silent, ask them about that. It doesn’t require great acts of heroism or defensiveness. It certainly doesn’t require photo-ops with that odious “Not ashamed to be a man” T-shirt.

      Furthermore, it is not some clever reductio ad absurdum to say that it’s just being “consistent” to say that it must also be applied to all Muslims. There are one and a half billion Muslims on this planet and the vast majority of victims of terrorism are themselves Muslim. They are of course ardently opposed to terrorism, they struggle hard daily against it and are killed for it my extremists who accuse them of being on the side of the infidels. It’s something that’s been done by extremists for millennia: attack the moderates so that there can be no middle ground and therefore no peace.

      We don’t see those statistics reported in our media, instead we see under such circumstances a media presentation of them as the “other”. There are over a billion Muslims who do struggle against terrorism because they themselves suffer from it within their community. To say that they do not and should is a blatant, racist lie by Murdoch.

      Weka points out about to Hoots eloquently, “You are conflating responsibility with guilt/blame. That’s you basically contaminating the debate. If you don’t want to feel guilty, great. But don’t assign your process to other people’s politics when you are clearly misrepresenting them.”

      There is no obvious equivalence at all, it is a distortion. One does not have to get defensive because defence is not the point, defensiveness is diversion.

      • vto 15.3.1
        11 January 2015 at 4:05 pm

        ” It is a sin of commission to rape, but it is a sin of omission to do nothing when one could prevent an atrocity or to tacitly facilitate it”

        Yes it is that is correct. However, that “omission”, which is the critical factor, has nothing to do with being male and everything to do with being human. I get the collective responsibility for male violence, however it comes via my humanity not my masculinity.

        That is the end of it.

        And that is the way things pan out – I think most people who do act in commission rather than omission do so due to their humanity – a person does not act to help someone due to their gender or other grouping, they help due to their humanity (extreme cases excluded).

        … and please give up on the “defensive” fallacy when this issue is raised… its tiresome and entirely inaccurate.

        • rhinocrates 15.3.1.1
          11 January 2015 at 4:26 pm

          responsibility for male violence, however it comes via my humanity not my masculinity.

          That is the end of it.

          You are confusing biology with culture. It does not come from your XY chromosomes, true. It does however come from cultural constructions of what it is to be a man.

          Certainly any human being can commit a generic act of violence against another human being and their sex has nothing to do with it. However, when a crime – such as rape or partner abuse or “honour killing” – is inherently one of misogyny and the abuse of power relations between the sexes, then one’s placement in a cultural system is crucial. Yes, there are women who rape men and men who rape men, but there is a cultural downplaying of rape OF women BY men as “rough sex” or “she was asking for it” or simply by silence. That is what we are being called upon to address and change – and which we can change by changing what culture defines as normal relations between men and women.

          True, culture says that rape is wrong overtly, but underneath and behind that there are sniggers and silence and blind eyes and they are a part of culture too, like it or not. They are what have to be addressed and that is the demand being made.

          … and please give up on the “defensive” fallacy when this issue is raised… its tiresome and entirely inaccurate.

          Sadly, it IS a defensive rhetorical reaction. It is an overt attempt to shut up a complaint by first distorting discussion of rape as an accusation towards all men of being rapists, which is untrue and then by declaring it irrelevant. It is a straw man and deserves to be condemned, no matter how “tiresome” you find it.

          It’s not all about you.

          • vto 15.3.1.1.1
            12 January 2015 at 8:50 am

            rhincrates: ” True, culture says that rape is wrong overtly, but underneath and behind that there are sniggers and silence and blind eyes and they are a part of culture too, like it or not. They are what have to be addressed and that is the demand being made.”

            Jeez, you make some assumptions don’t you? You still haven’t explained why those sniggers and silence and blind eyes up are more the responsibility of men than all of humanity. You make a leap without justification.

            I am very tired of this lumping of collective responsibility. This link with the collective responsibility of all muslims for the actions of the jihadis is a good one because it exposes the deficits in such an approach.

            Those with the most responsibility for men who are violent are their parents – their mothers and their fathers.

            So come on mums, why the fuck you raise these pricks?
            Come on dads, what on earth have you been doing while this man was a child?

            And finally this rhinocrates…”Sadly, it IS a defensive rhetorical reaction. It is an overt attempt to shut up a complaint by first distorting discussion of rape as an accusation towards all men of being rapists, which is untrue and then by declaring it irrelevant.” is simply not accepted..

            For the defence to be a distortion first the complaint must be credible, so you haven’t even got to step one yet. Suggesting that all men have an increased responsibility for violent men is the distortion away from the complaint.

        • weka 15.3.1.2
          11 January 2015 at 5:27 pm

          “I get the collective responsibility for male violence, however it comes via my humanity not my masculinity.”

          There are conversations that men can have with each other about rape that I as a woman cannot take part in. I agree that humanity is part of that, but it’s can’t be divorced from gender.

          • Stephanie Rodgers 15.3.1.2.1
            11 January 2015 at 5:55 pm

            A woman who criticises rape jokes = “fuck off, shrill harpy.”

            A man who criticises rape jokes = “Oh shit, sorry dude.”

            (Yes, it’s an oversimplification, #notallrapejokes etc etc)

            • One Anonymous Bloke 15.3.1.2.1.1
              11 January 2015 at 6:40 pm

              +1 to Weka and Stephanie both.

            • rhinocrates 15.3.1.2.1.2
              11 January 2015 at 6:51 pm

              Speaking of humour, I was listening to some albums by Margaret Cho recently and the jokes about the racial expectations she faced as an Asian-American really made me squirm, thinking “I couldn’t say that” – which was exactly the point and realising that, I could laugh with her, understanding her experience a little bit better. Humour and satire in skilled hands can break up unexamined prejudices. Bad jokes are those that reinforce prejudices.

              So anyway, yeah, that’s well put.

            • Descendant Of Sssmith 15.3.1.2.1.3
              11 January 2015 at 7:30 pm

              You’ve obviously never been a white male who has stood up to those (white males mainly) making such jokes.

              If you think the response is as you have stated you’re quite mistaken.

              It’s cost I, and others I know, jobs, promotions, friends, business opportunities, customers…

              On the other hand it’s also given us respect, self-respect, support, and at times has resulted in some real change in behaviour and attitude.

              Wouldn’t not stand up and say anything – indeed made someone I met this weekend quite disgruntled that he didn’t quite get the response he thought he was going to get when telling a man his age a highly offensive joke about young girls but it was also pretty clear I was the only one in the room stopping him from continuing – despite others discomfort.

              It’s actually quite easy to say something but tbh I’ve never seen either of the responses you outline above.

              I don’t think it’s simplistic – just inaccurate.

              • weka …
                11 January 2015 at 7:40 pm

                Good for you Ssssmith. That’s the harder end of the spectrum and I wish more men were able to go there.

                I took Stephanie’s comment to be more in the middle of the spectrum, the men who are going to have a reflexive reaction to being told by a woman but not by a man.

                And what I myself meant was that there is ground to be made by men talking to men. This is both in the creative sense and the challenging sense. I think men need to have male spaces to talk about this and how to work on it and having women there makes that harder or impossible or simply just changes the conversation.

                • Descendant Of Sssmith …
                  11 January 2015 at 8:17 pm

                  With the rise of the right in this country I’ve noticed quite a reversion to many of the pre-mid 80’s behaviours and practices.

                  In the 80’s in particular I think there was a real effort (within organisations) to change and to remove the sexist behaviours and approaches, engender positive support for those of other races and abilities.

                  It wasn’t everywhere and it wasn’t consistent but those who sat in relatively independent roles in many businesses and government departments in jobs such as EEO advisors, cultural advisors, health and safety etc made some real change.

                  The approach of independent observation and commentary engendering change was replaced by a “it’s now business as usual approach” and in some cases has now been replaced by places having someone look after the greening of a business eg paper waste.

                  It probably was business as usual for those in management roles at the time but those people have been replaced.

                  Wider social policy innovation has been replaced by Harvard Business School thinking and cost benefit analysis has been driven down to only cost analysis.

                  Many of these areas have gone backwards.

                  The classic symptom for me is the re-emergence of the women in management who behave like these men – and are expected to do so.

                  The swearing, the crudity, the sexual innuendo and the openness of this.

                  I’m pleased that some still stand up against this. I was quite shocked recently with the number of women who I came across supporting Roger Sutton for instance.

                  It saddened me that we’ve stepped so far backwards in many areas of social justice.

                  • weka …
                    11 January 2015 at 9:15 pm

                    going into the third term of a govt that excells at undermining NZ’s fairness for all culture is part of it. But I do think there is a larger backlash going on, and some of its to do with being too many decades down the neoliberal, I’m out for me path.

            • Murray Rawshark 15.3.1.2.1.4
              12 January 2015 at 12:54 am

              A man who criticises rape jokes = “Oh shit, sorry dude.”
              I’ve seen more of this:
              A man who criticises rape jokes = “Don’t be a soft cock, mate.”
              And sometimes it’s heard in the rugby clubs that FJK wanted Cunliffe to go and apologise in.

            • vto 15.3.1.2.1.5
              12 January 2015 at 8:38 am

              Stephanie Rogers: “A woman who criticises rape jokes = “fuck off, shrill harpy.”

              A man who criticises rape jokes = “Oh shit, sorry dude.”

              (Yes, it’s an oversimplification, #notallrapejokes etc etc)”

              What an oversimplified pile of rubbish. Pity it is at the heart of your point.

      • Murray Rawshark 15.3.2
        12 January 2015 at 12:20 am

        Great comment, rhino. I’m glad you’re posting again.

        • George Hendry 15.3.2.1
          12 January 2015 at 1:29 pm

          @ rhinocrates – first prize for valuable comments among a set that make the difference between left and right blogs ever so obvious 🙂

          Valuable work, never letting Mr Hooton forget the question he hasn’t answered yet. So much dirty politics depends on distraction and short memories.

  16. TheBlackKitten 16
    12 January 2015 at 3:15 pm

    See when you apologise for being white because another white person & a male at that has said something offensive (in your mind) all you are doing is unnecessarily drawing the racist/gender card to a head and making a molehill out of a mountain.
    As for Murdoch why not call for all Aussies to apologise for being Australian or how about, all people born in the same year as Murdoch apologising for being born in the same year as him. Do you see how absurd this political correctness is.
    And whilst on the subject of Murdoch how about those moderate Muslims explain to the rest of us why they don’t seek or condemn the actions of a radical few. Are they too frightened of them?
    And please, lets not be stupid enough to bring out the – this is a cult that has nothing to do with religion card. Anyone that does not have their minds muddled with political correctness will see that these extremists are basing their ideals from how they see the Koran which is a religious writing.
    Murdoch is not asking a unreasonable question, what he is doing is asking a question that does not involve any political correctness.
    However I would have thought that a rich boy who is head of a news outlet would have had better spelling skills than Moslems???

The server will be getting hardware changes this evening starting at 10pm NZDT.
The site will be off line for some hours.