What Maurice Williamson’s shock tells us about domestic violence

Written By: - Date published: 5:30 pm, May 2nd, 2014 - 279 comments
Categories: national - Tags: , ,

In defending himself against allegations of misusing ministerial authority, Maurice Williamson said of the domestic violence charges against Donghua Liu:

He had been “shocked” at the charges because Liu had required a clean record to get a New Zealand visa.

The logic is this: Liu needed a clean record to get a visa, Liu had a clean record ergo Liu couldn’t be the kind of person who commits violent acts against the women in his family. But the logic isn’t built on good foundations.

To get the basic poor assumption out of the way first, a clean record tells you only one thing: that a person has a clean record. It indicates a certain comparative level of lawfulness, but it’s not definitive proof that a person has always been law-abiding or well-behaved.

The more insidious assumption is this: that you can just tell if a person is violent or abusive by looking at them, their police record, and the size of their investment in New Zealand.

Domestic or intimate partner violence is a huge problem which is consistently under-reported or not treated seriously by law enforcement (especially if the accused abuser is rich or famous).

Even when it’s unavoidably brought to public attention, no excuse is too outrageous. Remember Charles Saatchi arguing that choking Nigella Lawson in a restaurant was just a ‘playful tiff’?

What we see in Maurice Williamson’s shock, and his subsequent behaviour, is a the reality of our general attitudes to domestic violence. Like the idea that domestic violence cases aren’t clear-cut crimes the way burglary or murder is. Or that a wealthy person with a clean record should get a stronger presumption of innocence, unlike the great unwashed.

In the meantime, the PSA have released more research into the impacts of domestic violence on workplaces:

Over half of the more than 1600 Public Service Association union members surveyed reported some experience with domestic violence, and 26 per cent had direct experience of family violence.

… PSA national secretary Brenda Pilott … had heard of a case where a government department was reluctant to give an employee time off work to attend a family court hearing about the welfare of her children.

When a senior government minister like Maurice Williamson thinks it’s appropriate to act the way he has, we can’t be surprised that domestic violence is a widespread, under-appreciated problem in New Zealand.

279 comments on “What Maurice Williamson’s shock tells us about domestic violence ”

  • Comments are now closed

  1. Lanthanide 1
    2 May 2014 at 6:33 pm

    Whatever happened with the whole roastbusters thing, anyway?

    • dv 1.1
      2 May 2014 at 6:41 pm

      yes Roast Busters needs to be followed up.

      • BM 1.1.1
        2 May 2014 at 8:20 pm

        Probably like the first time they looked at it, the police once again concluded there was nothing they could prosecute the boys on.

        Acting like arseholes isn’t a criminal offense.

        • Draco T Bastard 1.1.1.1
          2 May 2014 at 8:39 pm

          They were assaulting and raping people which is a criminal offense.

          • Pete George 1.1.1.1.1
            3 May 2014 at 6:45 am

            That’s what’s been claimed or alleged. I’m not aware of anything being proven. What came to light looked like it could be bad but hearsay and bragging could have exaggerated the severity, or an unwillingness to speak about it in public may have left the severity understated.

            Finding sufficient evidence and finding witnesses prepared to testify – especially victims – can often make it very difficult to convict in sexual assault cases. When the police are doing their jobs well they have to make sure they have good cases before putting victims through the ordeal of court action.

            With the amount of public scrutiny and interest in the Roasbusters the police should be making sure they thoroughly and fairly investigate.

            • felix 1.1.1.1.1.1
              3 May 2014 at 7:23 am

              “Finding sufficient evidence and finding witnesses prepared to testify – especially victims – can often make it very difficult to convict in sexual assault cases.”

              No. The victims did go to the police and lay complaints, and the police told them they were asking for it.

              Two years after receiving the first complaints from two 13 year old girls, the police were on tv lying to the public saying they’d love to prosecute but no victims had ever come forward.

              Perhaps you missed all this Pete, after all it was barely mentioned anywhere.

              Well, except on nz tv

              and on nz tv again

              and in the nz papers

              and in the british tabloids

              and on the american cable networks

              and if you managed to miss all that, you could always do a quick fact-check at wikipedia

              I don’t know if there’s a smiley that means “stupid rape-apologist enabler” so I’ll have to make do with this one:

              🙄

              • felix …
                3 May 2014 at 7:26 am

                ps stay tuned for Pete’s next comment where he claims that his second paragraph didn’t have anything to do with the roastbusters case, and that he neither agrees nor disagrees with child-rape.

                • One Anonymous Bloke …
                  3 May 2014 at 7:38 am

                  He’s too busy telling everyone what “we” “should” do.

                • weka …
                  3 May 2014 at 10:31 am

                  “ps stay tuned for Pete’s next comment where he claims that his second paragraph didn’t have anything to do with the roastbusters case, and that he neither agrees nor disagrees with child-rape.”

                  And then the comment a couple of hours into the conversation where he claims that he is really an anti-rape activist and is having talks with Rape Crisis.

                  🙄

              • Pete George …
                3 May 2014 at 7:42 am

                It’s a harsh reality of sexual crime felix. Trial by media is different to winnable court cases.

                Violence and sexual violence are huge and pervasive problems in New Zealand society. We have to do more to confront it – but a lynch mob mentality, whether it be in the media or on blogs, is a stupid and counterproductive approach.

                • One Anonymous Bloke …
                  3 May 2014 at 7:48 am

                  Who the fuck is “we”, supporter of party that cuts rape crisis funding?

                • felix …
                  3 May 2014 at 8:28 am

                  “It’s a harsh reality of sexual crime “

                  What is?

                  The NZ Police, all the way up to the Commissioner, lying through their teeth the public on TV is a “a harsh reality of sexual crime”?

                  Amazing. Even after the Police apologized for lying, Pete George is still telling the lie for them.

                  Even for you, Pete, that’s miserable.

                • Stephanie Rodgers …
                  3 May 2014 at 10:22 am

                  The only harsh reality is that sexual crime is treated differently because of societal attitudes – not because there’s anything inherently different about it. Those attitudes are only reinforced by this kind of hand-wringing woe-is-us response, or flinging around labels like ‘lynch mob’ to describe people’s justified outrage at the lack of Police response to serious allegations.

                • weka …
                  3 May 2014 at 10:29 am

                  “Violence and sexual violence are huge and pervasive problems in New Zealand society. We have to do more to confront it – but a lynch mob mentality, whether it be in the media or on blogs, is a stupid and counterproductive approach.”

                  I suspect you don’t understand the relatively recent historical context of the term lynch mob or you wouldn’t have used it. The public’s response to the rape gang wasn’t a lynch mob. There were a few people who advocated violence against the young men, but most people were simply alarmed and speaking out and taking action. The reason this seemed so extreme to you is because (a) you’re a rape apologist (“we have to do more to stop rape, but not too much esp if it goes beyond the norms of white middle class men’s values”) and (b) you don’t understand how most people felt about the situation (it’s not about ‘confronting’ rape, it’s about stopping it) and (c) we’ve not seen the public actually get what rape culture is before on a collective scale (which in fact was pretty fucking awesome). If we were ‘doing more’ to stop rape then that whole situation wouldn’t have played out the way it did (see felix’s comment about police not doing their job).

              • Tracey …
                3 May 2014 at 9:08 am

                stupid rape apologist enabler.

                thanks felix couldnt think of the right word.

                I had to resist just posting

                fuck off pete.

                theres a reason most sexual crimes dont move to prosecution and findings of guilt and attitudes like petes above and williamsons form part of it.

            • Tracey 1.1.1.1.1.2
              3 May 2014 at 9:04 am

              oh for gods sake. check the fucking facts before making a pseudo fact based opinion post again. you risk coming across as a supporter of boys will be boys and girls sometimes say they were raped when they werent.

              • Pete George …
                3 May 2014 at 9:09 am

                You risk making assumptions with an absence of facts.

                I’ve argued strongly against ” boys will be boys and girls sometimes say they were raped when they werent” on Kiwiblog and have been called a man-hater, Germaine Greer and a lot worse – also usually based on factless assumptions.

              • You_Fool …
                3 May 2014 at 9:47 am

                Don’t forget the fact that girls in short skirts who like to flirt were obviously asking for it and whatever happens after is not “rape” esp. if the girls had some alcohol!

            • finbar 1.1.1.1.1.3
              3 May 2014 at 8:22 pm

              Police evidence would have arrived at the conclusion,yes our investigations have led us to beleive a assault took place and that is why the suspect was arrested.

              • dv …
                3 May 2014 at 9:07 pm

                Finbar can to point to any where say there have been arrests?
                Nothing turns up on a google search.

                • dv …
                  4 May 2014 at 10:03 am

                  AND there are no reports that I can see about roast busters on the IPCA web site.
                  Nor are there any documents with the name hales or parker in the time frame.
                  Did Tolley actually file the complaint?
                  How can we find out?

    • One Anonymous Bloke 1.2
      3 May 2014 at 2:33 pm

      The Parker/Hales case aside, what more is being done to change attitudes (public and private) and/or protect victims?

      My feeling is that there are funding cuts across the sector and an increased reliance on a multitude of private providers, duplicating roles and turning a profit for shareholders. In other words a great big right wing shambles.

  2. karol 2
    2 May 2014 at 6:48 pm

    To me Williamson’s comment about the “clean record” doesn’t indicate a presumption of innocence. Rather, it indicates Williamson didn’t care whether Liu was innocent or guilty. He just wanted to be sure the guy kept his record clean for immigration purposes.

    • Tracey 2.1
      2 May 2014 at 7:10 pm

      and he makes no mention of the victims nor made any attempt to advocate for them. by yesterday mr liu had already pleaded guilty… not a word from williamson that by perhaps supporting liu in the call he was somehow undermining the victims.

      I now wonder how much he really believed his rainbow speech… maybe it wasnt sarcasm afterall.

    • Chooky 2.2
      2 May 2014 at 11:30 pm

      +100 karol…didnt care a fig for justice for the victims …..just his own neck…so he was interfering in the judicial system, despite his protestations to the contrary…and the police did a review ….it is just that he did not succeed in getting the outcome he wanted

      …and it all backfired horribly on him

      • Mary 2.2.1
        3 May 2014 at 12:34 am

        Williamson said today that he made the call because he was concerned how he would look if Lui was convicted given his involvement with Lui. I saw that as astounding.

        • Sacha 2.2.1.1
          3 May 2014 at 7:21 am

          Calling the police without being asked to suggests whose backside Maurice was protecting.

    • Pete George 2.3
      3 May 2014 at 6:53 am

      “Rather, it indicates Williamson didn’t care whether Liu was innocent or guilty. He just wanted to be sure the guy kept his record clean for immigration purposes.”

      Is that a presumption of specific guilt?

      I don’t think it’s unusual for people to be surprised by acts of serious domestic violence involving people they know. A lot of domestic violence happens in private. When a violent incident comes to light it can appear to be out of character.

      It’s not uncommon even for family members to defend violent acts and violent people, for a variety of reasons.

      • Tracey 2.3.1
        3 May 2014 at 9:15 am

        can you explain how the bit you quoted relates to your following statements.

        no mention of the victims by williamson, or you pete.

      • mickysavage 2.3.2
        3 May 2014 at 9:29 am

        Um Liu pleaded guilty Pete to quite a serious offence, assault with intent to injure. That should be sufficient proof of the allegations doncha think?

        Not trying to disrupt the thread are you?

        • Pete George 2.3.2.1
          3 May 2014 at 9:33 am

          That was after Williamson’s involvement. When did Liu plead guilty? Why would Williamson get involved if a guilty plea had already been made?

          Not trying to disrupt the thread are you?

          • mickysavage 2.3.2.1.1
            3 May 2014 at 9:40 am

            Feck. So you are saying that Williamson wanted to help establish Liu’s innocence even though it works out that he was guilty? Stop digging Pete …

            • Pete George 2.3.2.1.1.1
              3 May 2014 at 10:10 am

              I didn’t say that at all. And I wasn’t aware of any claim that Williamson tried to establish innocence – is that what you’re saying?

              You didn’t answer – when did Liu plead guilty?

              The charges were laid after an incident in December and Liu initially pleaded not guilty.

              However, the 53-year-old changed his plea to guilty on both charges during an appearance in the specialised Family Violence Court held within the Auckland District Court today.

              2:48 PM Tuesday Apr 1, 2014
              http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11230303

              When did Williamson contact the police about it?

              • Skinny …
                3 May 2014 at 11:12 am

                Williamson put his foot in his mouth while being interviewed on The Nation this morning. He basically said the complainants were wanting to withdraw charges, or weren’t wanting charges to proceed. The dirty rat didn’t give a toss about the wife getting beaten, he was just angling for no charges to proceed. One would be right to assume 22k buys actions of moral turpitude.

                Pete some civilized societies around the globe would view MP Williamson’s meddling as an attempt to pervert the course of justice.

                • Pete George …
                  3 May 2014 at 11:14 am

                  Including here. That’s why he had to resign as a Minister.

                  • Skinny …
                    3 May 2014 at 11:43 am

                    Far too light the PM should have approached the Governor General seeking Williamson be stood down from parliament as an MP, pending the result of a full inquiry as to his actions. Where was John Key’s high standards? They were blurred by the political donations sitting in the National Party’s bank account.

                    Williamson should be appearing in the dock of the old Bailey, just like Bent Bankie will be.

                  • Draco T Bastard …
                    3 May 2014 at 1:06 pm

                    No, that would be why he would be getting charged. He’s getting to resign so as to try and make those charges disappear so that he can run for parliament again.

                    It’s the old one rule for us and another for them that we see from the ‘elites’ all the bloody time.

                • Treetop …
                  3 May 2014 at 1:46 pm

                  I would have liked Williamson to have finished what he started to say about any possibility of charges being withdrawn.

                  Had Liu not have pleaded guilty, Could Liu have had his case thrown out because of a minister intervening in a police matter?

                  I want to know who the leaker was and when the leak occurred?

                  Williamson rang up the police on 20 January, I wonder when his electorate office opened for business and was he back at work then?

                  When did Liu ask Williamson to have the assault charge clarified and was this done in person and where was this done?

                  Why did Liu not go to his electorate MP?

                  I think the spotlight now has to go on the police.

                  As a side issue, this morning Collins appears to be trying to deflect some of the damage re Williamson by saying that Ross Robertson a Labour MP rang the police when she was minister of police.

                  How did Collins acquire this information?

              • Treetop …
                3 May 2014 at 3:23 pm

                To Pete George @ 2.3.2.1.1.1

                “When did Williamson contact the police about it?”
                In December.

                A timeline needs to be done.

                Date of assaults.
                Date Tims was contacted by Williamson.
                Date MPs knocked off for the holidays.
                Date Williamson’s electorate office closed and reopened.
                Date MPs returned for the parliamentary year.
                Date Tims commenced Williamson’s request.
                Date Williamson heard back from the police.

                Was Marshall or Bush away on holiday?

      • Stephanie Rodgers 2.3.3
        3 May 2014 at 10:31 am

        Pete, your third paragraph seems to show that you haven’t even read my post, which dealt with the fact that people’s shock about domestic violence reflects our assumptions about domestic violence and in turn reinforces a lot of the myths which keep it hidden and unaddressed.

        • phillip ure 2.3.3.1
          3 May 2014 at 11:34 am

          holding p.g. to account for his words..?

          ..good luck with that..

          ..it’s an online version of pissing into a high wind…

          ..just go and watch the ‘photocopier-vid from yesterdays’ and the day befores’ gen-debate thread..

          ..and laugh..

    • Stephanie Rodgers 2.4
      3 May 2014 at 10:26 am

      Since Liu already had citizenship at this point I assume maintaining his clean police record was no longer a concern.

      • Draco T Bastard 2.4.1
        3 May 2014 at 1:39 pm

        Not as far as his citizenship goes but it will make it difficult for him to cross many national borders. As an example I think you’ll find that he can’t get into Australia any more.

  3. BLiP 3
    2 May 2014 at 7:43 pm

    ‘

    Meh. What’s a bit of inter-spouse biffo got to do with anything where the John Key-led National Ltd™ Government is concerned? Run by males for males, the National Party™ are such a bunch of good fellows they can tell the difference between business and private matters, its the silly women like Collins that mixes them up and then makes the biggest mistake of all: getting caught.

    • toad 3.1
      2 May 2014 at 8:19 pm

      What’s a bit of inter-spouse biffo got to do with anything … the National Party™ are such a bunch of good fellows …

      Good pun, BLiP!

    • Stephanie Rodgers 3.2
      3 May 2014 at 10:32 am

      ‘Inter-spouse biffo’ is a really callous way to refer to one person assaulting two others. Even sarcastically.

      • BLiP 3.2.1
        3 May 2014 at 4:18 pm

        ‘

        Fair nuff.

        I wasn’t being sarcastic; I was attempting to be satirical by mimicking the tone one might expect from an exemplar National Ltd™ voter, and taking a relevant pot shot at one of that party’s leading lights. Yes, it was callous, but isn’t that insensitive and cruel disregard for others what fuels National Ltd™ politics? Neo-liberal thought has it that if a person is not winning in this current environment, it is due entirely to the failure of that individual: Don’t have a job? Get off your arse. Don’t have an education? Shoulda tried harder at school. Some one you love is ill? That’s what insurance is for. Your son is going to jail? Silly bugger shouldn’t have got caught. Getting beaten every pay-day night? Call the police and leave . . . and so on. In short, I suggest that the scourge of domestic violence is a microcosmic reflection of the macrocosmic effects which National Ltd™ is delivering to New Zealand society. If you think I’m exaggerating, have a look at what some of Williamson’s constituents had to say about their member of parliament attempting to pervert the course of justice in favour of a perpetrator of domestic violence . . .

        http://www.radiolive.co.nz/Maurice-Williamson-Pakuranga-voters-let-their-feelings-be-known-about-local-MP/tabid/673/articleID/44461/Default.aspx

        . . . they didn’t even think about it, probably.

        Obviously, my effort fell short in your estimation. I guess I should’ve made my intention clearer and borne in mind that, while I knew what I was attemping, the blogosphere lacks the meatworld visuals and tones of voice required for someone with my limited ability to pull off. I actually knew that already but, having had a recent and relatively long break, I needed a reminder. Thank you for that.

        Peace.

  4. Gruntie 4
    3 May 2014 at 5:56 am

    I may have missed it , but it hasn’t been widely reported- what exactly was Liu accused of?, was he convicted? Did the prosecution proceed ? If not, why not? – all very relevant questions I’m not sure the media have reported on?

  5. Pete George 5
    3 May 2014 at 7:19 am

    “When a senior government minister like Maurice Williamson thinks it’s appropriate to act the way he has, we can’t be surprised that domestic violence is a widespread, under-appreciated problem in New Zealand.”

    That’s why it’s important that people to speak up against domestic violence. Especially MPs who can set examples more easily than most people.

    So it’s good to see Kelvin Davis prepared to make this one of his missions, not just when he returns to Parliament but as soon as he returned to the public and political spotlight. He told me he wants to keep the momentum going and has done that on Twitter, and he posted this on his Facebook page:

    Korowai Tumanako – “Inspiring Courage, Igniting Hope” – Sexual Violence Prevention 027 422 6282

    I attended a hui today at Far North REAP, Kaitaia run by Russell Smith and Joy Te Wiata from Korowai Tumanako.

    The purpose of the hui was to start to develop a sexual prevention initiative for the Far North.

    Mike King was in attendance along with about 10 other invited guests. Marae Investigates attended and the story will air on TV1 this Sunday 10am. I will be a studio guest.

    I made notes as I went, and the following are the notes practically verbatim.

    – 1 in 6 women will experience sexual violence.
    – For Maori women that rate will double.
    – Sexual violence is the number one contributing factor of youth suicide. (We look everywhere for the answers but can’t see or want to talk about this elephant in the room).
    – If we want to castrate, hang draw and quarter all offenders, what do we do with the 8 year old boy who is an offender? At what age do we start the death penalty?
    – We all want sexual abuse to end, but we don’t want to name it, it gets mixed in with domestic violence and other forms of violence. We need to call it what it is.
    – A story was told of a girl who went to a sleepover, and when “the lights went out” they started talking about sexual abuse. Of the 6 girls who were at the sleepover, 5 had been sexually abused. None had gone through the justice system, i.e. the abuse had not been addressed.
    – 90% of those who have been abused, DO NOT themselves abuse, but of those who do abuse, 90% had been abused themselves.
    – 95% of men who abuse male children, are hetrosexual. Homosexual men as overwhelmingly less likely to be sexual offenders.
    – Sexual abusers are not your down and out stereotypical monsters, they come from all walks of life and all professions and ethnicities.
    – Sex offenders can generally be rehabilitated – most but not all.
    – To be a “sex offender” there has to be an element of power or exploitation in the offending.
    – We should intervene at “every moment”, with young children they need to be aware their (exploratory) behaviour is inappropriate, and move the behaviour on.
    – Many people in a family may know of another person’s offending, but not know that other people also know, so they feel isolated.
    – 95% of people who are abused know the offender. Stranger danger is not the beast it is made out to be. (but still be aware it does occur, without being paranoid).
    – The characteristics of a “safe person” (e.g. honest, has values, transparent, can be trusted, caring, people person, known all your life, kind, loving, calm, not angry, etc) are the same characteristics of a perpetrator. That helps them to offend.
    – People who are known offenders are less of a risk than unknown offenders. It’s the people we don’t know about who are the high risk.
    – If we want to know the answers, we need to talk to the people who cause the damage.

    It was a bloody interesting hui with candid korero. To get an idea of what the hui was about, watch Marae on TV 1 this coming Sunday 10am.

    We shouldn’t just applaud Kelvin for keeping the momentum going, we should help him build it.

    • One Anonymous Bloke 5.1
      3 May 2014 at 7:35 am

      “We” are. Whereas you run interference for a government that plays politics with rape crisis funding.

      • Pete George 5.1.1
        3 May 2014 at 7:46 am

        Do you support Kelvin’s initiative? Or is playing petty politics more important to you?

        • One Anonymous Bloke 5.1.1.1
          3 May 2014 at 7:50 am

          Just pointing out how you undermine Kelvin’s initiative.

          • Pete George 5.1.1.1.1
            3 May 2014 at 8:01 am

            You’re the one who does that, regularly. Confrontation, abuse, attack, harrass, violence. Domestic. Blog. Similar behaviours.

            • One Anonymous Bloke 5.1.1.1.1.1
              3 May 2014 at 8:06 am

              🙄

            • Lanthanide 5.1.1.1.1.2
              3 May 2014 at 9:36 am

              🙄

            • weka 5.1.1.1.1.4
              3 May 2014 at 10:36 am

              🙄

            • rhinocrates 5.1.1.1.1.5
              3 May 2014 at 10:36 am

              OMFG, does that imbecile really believe that? Being snarked and contradicted is “similar” to being assaulted and raped? Jesus.

              Oh Pete, you poor man, you’d better check yourself into a refuge right away!

              Actually, sarcasm is the nicest I can manage.

              If anything it shows the utterly vile narcissism and callousness of this [insert expletive of your choice here].

              • weka …
                3 May 2014 at 10:39 am

                It’s yet more evidence that PG has absolutely nocredibility when it comes to understanding the realities of violence (or anything the requires listening to people’s real experiences and understanding the dynamics of power).

        • miravox 5.1.1.2
          3 May 2014 at 8:50 am

          Kelvin’s initiative is fantastic. I hope he gains real traction on this.

          However, just to remind people that it’s you, Pete, who plays politics…

          https://www.facebook.com/permalink.php?story_fbid=778279242203925&id=776784779020038&notif_t=wall

          I hope this means you retract and apologise for your posting of the above comment on Kelvin’s website?

          [no need to answer unless it’s an unconditional ‘yes’]

          • Pete George 5.1.1.2.1
            3 May 2014 at 9:30 am

            I don’t see any need to apologise. Violence is particularly bad amongst men but not confined to men by any means. Sometimes it’s necessary to be provocative to make a point. Kelvin understands this, it’s what he’s doing, deliberately but warily. His response to my explanation for that comment:

            Thanks Peter, I understand what you’re saying. It’s good that people are engaging around the issue. I have to find some way to keep the momentum going. Am have contacted an organisation that works with perpetrators so hopefully I get the messages straight and don’t do damage.

            One of the points I was making, admittedly provocatively, was that it isn’t just a male problem, it’s an entrenched culture. As illustrated by these comments in a current discussion on Kiwiblog by Northland Wahine.

            Disagree Pete. I bet this kid wasn’t disciplined by his mother which is why he’s in his grandfathers care. Given he threatened his grandfather with the police and carried it thru, makes me think more so.

            I don’t think a kick up the arse to a 13 yr old snot as violence. A 3 year old? Yeah.

            Breaking the cycle should not only refer to family violence, it should also refer to families not being held responsible for their kids. This grandfather was stepping up to that responsibility. For his aroha, he’s been prosecuted. That’s an injustice in my eyes.

            and
            Judith, it’s an arse of a law. Beating a child, an adult is illegal. This wasn’t a beating. It was a kicked butt. And chances are you are right that it may not stop someone from reoffending. But I bet for every prisoner that was kicked up the arse as a kid, another 3 would be offenders aren’t in jail because someone took the time to discipline them.

            http://www.kiwiblog.co.nz/2014/05/general_debate_3_may_2014.html

            Females support our violence and rape cultures too, that shouldn’t just be ignored. Men are mostly responsible but not solely by a long way.

            • marty mars 5.1.1.2.1.1
              3 May 2014 at 9:41 am

              “Sometimes it’s necessary to be provocative to make a point”

              Oh where would we be without you being provocative.

              I’ll not speak for davis but I read his statements as being genuine in intent – he wants to generate discussion about the topic of violence and seek solutions. IMO You just want to make and score your points – a deliberate strategy (in the most offensive way) to create murk and mud and lead away from the actual discussion.

              • Pete George …
                3 May 2014 at 10:16 am

                Again you’re wrong. Sure I wanted to make a point, and Kelvin acknowledged “I understand what you’re saying.” I believe his comments on Native Affairs on Monday night may have showed that he understood.

                • marty mars …
                  3 May 2014 at 12:10 pm

                  You made your point by presenting vile untruths that persecute those that are victims and thus support continued violence in society. It is a mockery that your profile claims you are an anti-violence campaigner. This is part of what you wrote,

                  “In the case of many Maori men, they had their first taste of being beaten up by their (solo) mother until they got old enough to leave home and big enough to be the boss themselves. At this point woe betide the woman who tries,or appears to try to dominate him.”

                  Own your shit pete and then you may become part of the solution not part of the problem.

                  • Pete George …
                    3 May 2014 at 12:31 pm

                    I posted that because it reflected common views, because there was some truth in it, and ignoring parts of the issue of family violence is a part of the problem. We need to acknowledge the many components of the issue and understand varying opinions to solve it.

                    • marty mars …
                      3 May 2014 at 1:29 pm

                      You posted it because it reflects your view, doesn’t it – or if it doesn’t then what parts of that excerpt that I have quoted, that you posted up, are not true in your opinion.

                    • weka …
                      3 May 2014 at 1:47 pm

                      PG would never be so crass as to state his own views so baldly. So he cut and pastes someone else’s views, and then says that there some truth to them. We could hardly accuse him of being lazy, so I assume he has another reason for not just saying what HE thinks in the first place.

                • felix …
                  3 May 2014 at 12:50 pm

                  “Sure I wanted to make a point, and Kelvin acknowledged “I understand what you’re saying.” “

                  Kelvin said that about/to you?

                  Where? I don’t see it on the faceboof thread? Got a link please?

            • Stephanie Rodgers 5.1.1.2.1.2
              3 May 2014 at 10:37 am

              Thanks for trying to make my post all about you, Pete. As others have said, your specific history on Kelvin Davis’ Facebook page is a direct contradiction of your professed desire to take real action to address domestic violence and the attitudes around it.

              You have once again tried to spin Davis’ incredibly powerful words so that you can get pearl-clutchy about how we can’t just blame men, it’s not only men’s fault, etc. When called on your disruptive behaviour, you try to pretend it’s all a big thought experiment because you’re just trying to ‘provoke’ debate.

              These are very common tactics used to derail and deflect serious conversation about a serious issue. In future, maybe you could keep this kind of thing on your own blog?

              • Pete George …
                3 May 2014 at 10:59 am

                Interesting that you so far seem to think I’m the only one on this thread who deserves a reprimand.

                I made a serious attempt to contribute to this topic. That the usual crew decide to make this another thread bashing is their call. Some would see it as continued bullying. It seems that you don’t see it that way. Ironic on this thread.

                • weka …
                  3 May 2014 at 11:09 am

                  Narcissist much?

                  If you go back through the comments that are replies to you, most of them are addressing either the points you raised, or your politics, or both. That’s what we do here.

                  • Paul …
                    3 May 2014 at 11:11 am

                    It is really depressing to see how he has disrupted an important discussion on this thread.

                • Stephanie Rodgers …
                  3 May 2014 at 11:17 am

                  There is nothing ironic about this at all. This is a consistent pattern of behaviour from you and it’s utterly unsurprising that people are fed up with it.

                  Upthread you literally compared being criticised on a blog with domestic violence. That shows exactly how seriously you take this discussion, and exactly how much this is all about re-running the same old ‘poor me, I’m such a martyr’ charade which disrupts serious conversation all over this site.

                  • Pete George …
                    3 May 2014 at 11:23 am

                    No, it’s just a simple reflection on what happens here, a consistent pattern of behaviour involving a number of people, a supported culture of personal harrasment. It doesn’t just happen to me, it’s common. I just happen to be the current favoured target, if I didn’t comment here it be someone else deemed an enemy of the cause or become infighting. The same as on many forums, especially where politics is concerned.

                    Intolerance of different views is counterproductive to achieving anything worthwhile.

                    • Lanthanide …
                      3 May 2014 at 11:38 am

                      “a consistent pattern of behaviour involving a number of people”

                      All stemming from YOU. This stuff doesn’t happen to anyone else.

                      I’m reminded of this: http://www.despair.com/dysfunction.html

                    • weka …
                      3 May 2014 at 12:19 pm

                      “It doesn’t just happen to me, it’s common.”

                      Nah, you take it to a whole new level. Come on Petey, acknowledge that you are special.

                    • weka …
                      3 May 2014 at 12:31 pm

                      “Intolerance of different views is counterproductive to achieving anything worthwhile.”

                      Riiiight. So disagreeing with you is akin to bashing one’s partner. Glad we got that straight.

                    • Stephanie Rodgers …
                      3 May 2014 at 2:00 pm

                      You are (deliberately, I suspect) confusing ‘intolerance of different views’ with ‘being asked to stop deliberately disrupting conversations’.

                    • rhinocrates …
                      3 May 2014 at 2:06 pm

                      http://xkcd.com/1357/

                      Frankly PG, your comparing yourself with rape and assault victims in a pathetic, narcissistic attempt to turn a serious discussion about a serious issue into a pity fest for you is callous, belittling, tasteless and despicable.

                • Tracey …
                  3 May 2014 at 11:20 am

                  you feel that how you are treated here is akin to domestic violence. I was sexually assaulted at the age of 11 by a close family friend. do I win????

                  • Pete George …
                    3 May 2014 at 11:28 am

                    No one wins with this issue Tracey. Things might get better if people were prepared to work towards common goals rather. Do you think personal attacks on blogs do anything to help?

                    • Tracey …
                      3 May 2014 at 11:37 am

                      you are right pete. what happened to me and the aftermath is just like people confronting you on a blog.

                    • Pete George …
                      3 May 2014 at 11:55 am

                      It’s a difficult and very sensitive topic for many people. There’s things I can’t talk about publicly. Care has to be taken not to assume what silence on certain things means. Hurt is wide and deep in our society.

                      Obviously sexual violence is at the extreme end of bullying power inflicting putdown behaviours. Petty blog attacks are at the opposite end. But there are some similarities. Amongst other abuse I’ve been accused of being a child molester on Kiwiblog for debating against sexual violence so it can move away from the mild end of the spectrum. That person was banned there for that.

                      That shouldn’t detract from the severity of the sexual violence that happens in our society. But it doesn’t make angry attack behaviours acceptable does it? Or should we only worry about things when they’re over a certain threshold?

                    • Tracey …
                      3 May 2014 at 12:00 pm

                      god. I try to give you the benefit of the doubt but you make it damned hard.

                      you wont have to worry about real or perceived abuse from me cos I dont intend entering into dialogue with you again.

                    • freedom …
                      3 May 2014 at 12:16 pm

                      I’m almost a week cold turkey now Tracey,
                      there are no major withdrawal symptoms to speak of 😎

                    • Lanthanide …
                      3 May 2014 at 12:36 pm

                      By and large I don’t reply to PG’s comments because they’re typically mealy-mouthed puffed up crap with no actual content or claims worth debating, just hollow statements that seem to go nowhere.

                      That’s assuming I read his comments at all, I usually try to avoid it but when the threads go on for so long, I end up reading the replies and then get drawn into it that way.

                    • Tracey …
                      3 May 2014 at 12:40 pm

                      thanks freedom ( and lanth).

                    • miravox …
                      3 May 2014 at 7:30 pm

                      Wow. A complete lack of empathy and a complete lack of self awareness from Mr George.

                      I was trying to figure out if it was one or the other that resulted in PG continued ability to mis-communicate on blogs and then call himself centrist because he manages to piss nearly everyone off.

                      But it’s both.

                      Lanth, rino – thanks for the links. They’re both very relevant.

                    • Stuart Munro …
                      4 May 2014 at 4:39 am

                      It’s not personal Pete – you persistently highjack threads and try to drag them into a limbo of relativism. It’s bad manners. Speak to the issues and keep it brief.

            • weka 5.1.1.2.1.3
              3 May 2014 at 10:44 am

              “Females support our violence and rape cultures too, that shouldn’t just be ignored. Men are mostly responsible but not solely by a long way.”

              oh just fuck off with your false framing, again, PG. You are the only person that thinks there is an issue with “men are all to blame”.

              • Tracey …
                3 May 2014 at 11:07 am

                not quite. vto got very upset on that point.

                that about 90% of sexual violators never get charged and 99.9999% of them are male is not the point. apparently.

                we have to change the attitude of female victims rather than the behaviour of most men toward men, which group includes sexual violators.

                • weka …
                  3 May 2014 at 11:13 am

                  Yes, and Red too. Both Red and vto do a similar kind of false framing as PG. I was meaning people in the conversation here.

                  I don’t understand your last sentence.

                  • Tracey …
                    3 May 2014 at 11:17 am

                    pg is saying we need to get women to change too. I was sarcastically framing it for him.and left out to wo before the second men. sorry. cellphone and fat finger syndrome.

                    its only a matter of time before someone throws in the

                    but women rape too

                    comment to muddy the waters. I thought pg did this. might be wrong.

                    • weka …
                      3 May 2014 at 12:29 pm

                      🙂

                    • RedLogix …
                      3 May 2014 at 3:23 pm

                      This isn’t a political discussion. It’s a personal one. That’s obvious.

                      I’ve sat here for the last 10 or 20 minutes having a long hard think about my own life. Here’s a truth about it:

                      Apart from some drunk idiots in a pub once I’ve never been physically threatened by another male in my life. And apart from one rather extraordinary incident on literally the last hour of my secondary school days I’ve never, ever, hit anyone. I count that as a blessing and good fortune.

                      I find with most men if you treat them with some modicum of respect and keep out of their faces – they will respond in kind. Most normal men hate physical confrontation and will do anything to avoid it. I know I do.

                      Except when we are drunk, emotionally wrought, or something has disrupted our routine self-control. And there are many things which fall into that category such as brain damage (A huge portion of male prison inmates have brain-damage symptoms) or PTSD (as did a whole generation of ex-WW2 soldiers.)

                      In my experience physical violence by men is a very abnormal condition. Due to our size and upper body strength we are especially capable of it – but compared with most other mammal species we are also remarkably co-operative and non-violent – most of the time.

                      But I wish I could say the same about all the other forms of abuse I’ve encountered over the years. In my own personal experience that both genders participate in non-lethal, non-injury causing sexual, emotional and psychological abuse at about the same rates. Neither gender has a monopoly on virtue.

                      And this seems to be backed up by considerable research over the last decade.

                      Dangerous physical violence, is a uniquely male challenge. It’s our problem due to our genetics. While relatively uncommon in daily life, it’s extreme and highly visible consequences demand attention and a responsibility we must own. Our strength is both a blessing and a curse.

                      But in every other respect – abuse in general is a universal challenge that both genders are responsible for. And what I see here on these threads is shouting at each other from increasingly polarised and mutually incomprehensible positions that takes no ownership on this whatsoever.

                      False frame that.

                    • Stephanie Rodgers …
                      3 May 2014 at 4:41 pm

                      The thing is, you’re taking your personal experience and extrapolating it to the whole of society. The actual facts of violence in our society are that it is not abnormal, that many, many people commit violent acts without the excuses of alcohol or ‘disruption’, and that the overwhelming majority of violence is committed by men.

                      The false framing you’re applying, RL, is to draw a line around ‘dangerous physical violence’ and pretend it’s an aberration, in order to continue your argument that nobody should be allowed to identify male violence as a male problem.

                      To me, the reason there’s ‘increasing polarisation’ in this discussion is because some people, including you, are simply determined not to let an honest, fact-based conversation happen, and consistently jump in to say ‘but it’s not just men, it’s not just men, women have to do something too, it’s not just men’. When – as has been clearly stated many, many times – nobody is saying it’s just men.

                    • karol …
                      3 May 2014 at 4:57 pm

                      Further to Stephanie’s spot-on response of RL.

                      It is also false framing to claim we all can experience emotional and psychological abuse and that it is far more damaging than physical and sexual abuse.

                      But, the problem with that is that we women also experience that emotional and psychological abuse. I would categorise the physical kinds of abuse as oparticularly damaging to very many people in society, especially those that are physically vulerable. The threat of physical abuse from average strength able-bodied males can be life threatening, and life limiting. It’s not possible to tell in advance which men will resort to physical abuse.

                      And physical abuse usually includes emotional and psychological abuse – a double whammy.

                      As Stephanie indicates, our whole culture is permeated with ways that normalise such physical violence.

                    • RedLogix …
                      3 May 2014 at 9:22 pm

                      The false framing you’re applying, RL, is to draw a line around ‘dangerous physical violence’ and pretend it’s an aberration, in order to continue your argument that nobody should be allowed to identify male violence as a male problem.

                      Utter fucking bullshit. What exactly do you think I am saying here:

                      “Dangerous physical violence, is a uniquely male challenge. It’s our problem due to our genetics. While relatively uncommon in daily life, it’s extreme and highly visible consequences demand attention and a responsibility we must own.”

                      That somehow I’m ‘not allowing male violence to be a male problem’??? Frankly I’m beginning to wonder if lousy reading comprehension is not a uniquely female problem. It’s really hard having an honest conversation with someone who just makes shit up.

                      The difference between the genders when it comes to abuse is simply this; men cause more physical harm and it’s a lot more visible and it gets a lot more attention. Rightly so. No quibble. No compromise.

                      And very briefly (to avoid traversing territory we are all familiar with) yes it is plain our society has a legacy of ‘normalising’ this violence in some ways. And some men do shelter behind it, cycnically using their strength to intimidate or hurt because they think their victim is helpless or unable to fight back. The cowardly have always been with us.

                      But most men do not. Really. While it’s common among a smallish minority of men, for most of us actual violence is a rare occurrence in our lives. But we also understand that it is a potential in any one of us and with maturity we learn to guard against it.

                      However as we get older we also learn that it is not possible to predict in advance which women will resort to abuse as well. Particularly emotional abuse.

                      As a rule each gender, when under threat resorts to the weapon that lies nearest to hand – with men it tends to be their physical and sometimes economic strength, with women it is their superior emotional and psychological abilities. When men abuse it is dangerous and usually very stupid; when women abuse it is often subtle but very nasty. One is visible and overt, the other is not. Different patterns of behaviour, but neither command a scrap of moral high ground.

                      A forty year battle against a predominantly patriarchal society means that feminists have justly invested a huge amount into the battle against male violence. It’s no surprise that this investment is defended fiercely. So when a someone suggests that there is a wider abuse issue both genders need to own in common – it gets promptly shouted down because there is a threatening sense it shifts the framing away from a narrow attention on male violence, diluting and detracting from what is important to you.

                      And for this reason the discussion diverges into hostility, instead of converging to mutual understanding.

                      When – as has been clearly stated many, many times – nobody is saying it’s just men.

                      When I read that I hear weasel words because what I’ve yet to see (and fairly I’m no world expert so feel free to point me) is any women in this discussion honestly owning to any possibility they may have a responsibility here.

                      You know -like you have been demanding of men for a a while now.

                    • marty mars …
                      3 May 2014 at 10:50 pm

                      “When men abuse it is dangerous and usually very stupid; when women abuse it is often subtle but very nasty.”

                      Guess what red, abuse from men also contains the subtle and very nasty as well as the dangerous and very stupid. I don’t hear women commenting here saying it is all men who abuse but that doesn’t seem to matter to you.

                      “The difference between the genders when it comes to abuse is simply this; men cause more physical harm and it’s a lot more visible and it gets a lot more attention.”

                      That is just wrong imo – the difference is that predominately men abuse women – physically, emotionally, and all the other – allys you may be able to think of. Note the word ‘predominately’ that should give you a hint.

                      “So when a someone suggests that there is a wider abuse issue both genders need to own in common – it gets promptly shouted down because there is a threatening sense it shifts the framing away from a narrow attention on male violence, diluting and detracting from what is important to you.”

                      No I don’t think so. You want to widen the discussion – why again? It is just imo a tactic to avoid confronting the very real, large and ingrained issue of male abuse and violence. Once again, as a male and imo, changing the framing does actually dilute and detract from the main issue of male violence which is most definitely important to me. Note the term ‘main issue’.

                    • RedLogix …
                      4 May 2014 at 12:35 am

                      marty,

                      Guess what red, abuse from men also contains the subtle and very nasty as well as the dangerous and very stupid. I don’t hear women commenting here saying it is all men who abuse but that doesn’t seem to matter to you.

                      In a single sentence it’s neither possible, nor desirable, to hedge all the possibilities. Of course men can be subtle and nasty, just as women can be physical and dangerous – but I was of course generalising. Which does not nullify the point I was making – that each gender is capable of abuse, but tend to dish it out in the form they are most competent in.

                      That is just wrong imo – the difference is that predominately men abuse women – physically, emotionally, and all the other – allys you may be able to think of.

                      Sadly – and I mean that – the more recent research on this suggests this just ain’t so. Turns out that if you exclude the dangerous physical violence (but leave in the pushing, shoving and slapping that doesn’t typically lead to visible injury, hospitalisation and visits from the police) that both genders are guilty of physical, sexual and emotional abuse at comparable rates.

                      Men have somewhat higher rates, but not that much higher. The difference is much less than the conventional wisdom suggests. Several reasons are given.

                      Male violence is a lot more visible, even taking into account that it tends to me more dangerous. For instance if a man slaps a woman in the face there is a good chance she will report it and will have a decent bruise as evidence leading to charges. When a woman slaps a man – it’s very rare for it to be reported, much less for charges to be laid.

                      Secondly a man being slapped is highly likely to consider it his fault. “We were arguing and it was my fault she was that pissed off” is the common (and familiar) rationalisation. And thirdly of course there is the humiliation of his friends and workmates finding out. So this leads to a massive under reporting of female physical abuse. Much the same massive under- reporting applies to when women sexually abuse.

                      And emotional abuse, the kind women specialise in, is not even a crime. No-one reports it, and it never leads to charges.

                      What after all is the difference between breaking a leg on a skiing holiday and having it broken because your male partner threw you off the first floor balcony? The difference is not the broken leg – it is the emotional and psychological impact of having someone you maybe still love and care for use violence to intimidate, control, humiliate, and coerce you.

                      What after all is the difference between date-rape and a happy night out? Consent – which is the absence of intimidation, control, humiliation and coercion.

                      All abuse is at it’s heart emotional and psychological in nature.

                      karol’s argument It is also false framing to claim we all can experience emotional and psychological abuse and that it is far more damaging than physical and sexual abuse. is of course a gross inversion and misrepresentation. She should know better.

                      What determines how ‘damaging’ any given abusive scenario is hard to predict, but in simple general terms relates to emotional intensity, repetition and the degree of helplessness experienced. And this applies similarly across all forms of abuse, physical, sexual, emotional, financial, etc.

                      And this without elevating any one form above another, or giving one a specious precedence for reasons of gender politics.

                    • miravox …
                      4 May 2014 at 2:49 am

                      “Turns out that if you exclude the dangerous physical violence”

                      Why would you exclude “the dangerous physical violence”? What does that actually mean in terms of domestic violence statistics?

                      “And emotional abuse, the kind women specialise in, is not even a crime…

                      On the one hand you say women are as physically violent as men, and on the other that women specialise in emotional violence. So despite or you protestations of equality you seem to either imply women are more culpable in domestic violence i.e. they specialise in emotional violence plus are just as bad as men in the physical violence (when you exclude the dangerous physical violence), or you haven’t framed your argument properly.

                      Imo, it’s false to say emotional violence is worse that physical violence, or even on the same level. However I do see that emotional injury can be very difficult to recover from – especially if you’re not murdered or permanently physically scared or disabled from being hit, kicked or whatever. Many, many times emotional abuse comes with the physical added extra so both are intertwined (is looking at physical damage everyday emotional or physical abuse in your mind?). I’ve yet to see physical domestic violence come without emotional abuse from the a dominant partner – male or female. And I’ve seen a fair bit.

                    • locus …
                      4 May 2014 at 5:51 am

                      As a rule each gender, when under threat resorts to the weapon that lies nearest to hand

                      RedLogix – where do you conjure this bizarre “rule” up from?

                      The issue here is that there are very many men in NZ who take it as their right to beat, smash, kick, deafen, sexually abuse or terrorise a female partner.

                      You seem to suggest that name calling or abusive and nasty language causes the same kind of harm. It does not. But – combine abusive language with physical violence and it’s a wholly different scale of damage. It’s this – typically – male violence against women which demands our serious attention.

                      RL, perhaps you don’t believe that there are many men who are like this because you aren’t one of them, and because when you see men in the street or at work they ‘amazingly’ control this violence. Don’t underestimate the ubiquity of male violence against women and children, nor their ability to behave like decent human beings when they are not behind closed doors. The Women’s Refuge organization in NZ receives a call every six minutes on its crisis lines.

                      Research conducted in 2004 concluded that 33 to 39% of New Zealand women experience physical and/or sexual violence from an intimate partner during their lifetimes, and that 4.9% of NZ women suffered moderate to severe physical violence or sexual abuse at least once in the previous 12 months. ….. This is a shocking statistic…..

                      Whether the number is in the thousands or the tens of thousands, it’s clear that male physical and/or sexual violence against women is a serious cancer in our society. It causes physical damage, psychological scars and in most cases a lifelong legacy of emotional consequences.

                      imo – any discussion about the serious problem and prevalence of male violence against women is absolutely not an appropriate forum for “oh poor me” comments from (a very small number of) men who feel that they have been damaged because they have been pushed, slapped or had ‘nasty’ language directed at them from a female.

                      Once the scourge of male violence in New Zealand is fixed, then perhaps we can write another post turning our attention towards how to stop abusive language.

                    • Pete George …
                      4 May 2014 at 6:51 am

                      Redlogix has raised some very good and valid points. He’s right that men are mostly stronger and more likely to physically hurt and damage more. But they are not alone in relationships and they are not alone in relationship issues that tip over into violence.

                      There are different reasons for domestic violence. Some people use violence to impose power and control over a partner. This is predominately male with links to historical attitudes of men ‘owning’ their wife/partner.

                      Some violence is the culmination of built tensions in a relationship that can result in a violent act (that can be out of normal character). One reason for this can be that under pressure one person (usually male) reverts to a behaviour learned as a child, that you ‘sort out’ or react to behaviour you don’t like by hitting.

                      So far here it’s only been adult versus adult violence discussed. Adult behaviours are often learned in a child’s first few years. Some kids learn that hitting is how to deal with things, especially when anger is involved. Kids learn this off both male and female parents and caregivers.

                      I won’t and can’t quantify except I’ll acknowledge violence is predominately inflicted by males but not exclusively.

                      But saying violence is a male problem that must males must ‘fix’ before any other factor is discussed ignores the complexities of the problem.

                      And saying that ‘men’ must own the problem and deal with it can cause a lot of genuine indignation and anger amongst men who are non-violent – possibly sizable majority of men. If you want to see this try mentioning ‘rape culture’ on Kiwiblog. Some men may use indignation to mask their guilt but others are offended to be blanket included in a problem they abhor.

                      Many non-violent men and women are not to blame for violence but have a joint societal responsibility to do something about our problems with violence. Kelvin Davis recognises this so is speaking up about the problem, as do others.

                      Shaming and bullying men (and women) who are not violent into silence or quiet compliance with a ‘men bad, women victims’ approach alienates potential allies in attempts to address our problems with violence. The more voices against violence the better to make it clear to the sizable minority of violent people that it is not acceptable.

                      It’s a very difficult and touchy topic because many people have physical and psychological scars from violence. However we need to avoid fighting against each other and find ways of working together to reduce violence and the many things that contribute to violence.

                    • Pete George …
                      4 May 2014 at 7:16 am

                      As a rule each gender, when under threat resorts to the weapon that lies nearest to hand.

                      That’s a fair point, but it can get very complicated.

                      Women should be encouraged and helped to remove themselves and their children from violent relationships and situations (so should men). But threats to remove a father’s rights to have access to his kids has been reported as a weapon too. In some cases threats – or perceptions of threats and this can get complicated in the heat of battle – could escalate into self fulfilling prophesies as tensions and emotions boil over.

                      It’s complicated, as anyone who has experienced relationship difficulties will know. The other partner is not the only one who has been imperfect. And the weapons (or defences or what you want to call them) either uses can contribute to the conflict.

                      There’s no excuse to resorting to violence (in general, there are exceptions), but there can be many reasons for it happening.

                    • One Anonymous Bloke …
                      4 May 2014 at 7:55 am

                      I have yet to see a serious act of violence that was not provoked by the experience of feeling shamed and humiliated, disrespected and ridiculed, and that did not represent the attempt to prevent or undo this ‘loss of face’–no matter how severe the punishment, even if it includes death…

                      James Gilligan

                      Violence has its genesis in the minds of the violent. Not in whatever someone said that upset them.

                      Gilligan paints a picture of a group of big cry-babies, bawling about their precious “respect”.

                    • Descendant Of Sssmith …
                      4 May 2014 at 8:28 am

                      FFS. That women can be violent is a self-evident truism that has little (and more likely no place) in this discussion.

                      Violence that puts women in hospital, that produces the black eyes and bruises, that use rape as a weapon, that has male ex-partners killing their ex-partners is overwhelmingly male.

                      The culture in gangs where you get the bash, (male and female), is an predominantly male dominated culture.

                      The religious culture where you “spare the rod, spoil the child” is a predominantly male culture.

                      The world of business where women can’t even be paid the equivalent of men for what is often more meaningful work to society is a predominantly male culture. Where workers aren’t given the time to be with their families in a meaningful and non-stressed way.

                      And in all those male dominated cultures within our society there are men who dominate who are particularly violent or particularly charismatic or who are particularly ruthless or particularly lacking in empathy.

                      It’s those dominating ones that continue the perpetuation because they teach those men coming up that that’s how you get ahead, that’s how you be a man, that might is right.

                      Those cultural aspects need changing if we are to reduce violence against women.

                      In doing so it will likely reduce all violence against anyone.

                    • Ennui …
                      4 May 2014 at 1:16 pm

                      Red, you have my sympathy here. In a long ago prior life I had the run of crime files for research purposes: ask a cop and they would pretty much confirm they attend significant domestic disturbances that are caused by females, men will usually refuse to lay a complaint. I saw the number of events attended versus the complaints laid: not insignificant even if a small percentage.

                      The whole issue I find rather difficult to debate because we seem to take sides, male versus female. Emotional versus physical harm. Etc etc, its so complex, and accusing somebody of “framing” just does not help address the breadth of the issue.

                    • Tracey …
                      4 May 2014 at 1:48 pm

                      ennui

                      please provide some of your practical ideas fr reducing omestic and sexual violence. i would be surprised if they were not welcomed. same goes for redlogix and anyone else.

                    • Stephanie Rodgers …
                      4 May 2014 at 3:11 pm

                      But [men] are not alone in relationships and they are not alone in relationship issues that tip over into violence.

                      And once again, Pete: no one is saying they are. By pretending that that’s the conversation that’s happening, you and RedLogix are creating excuses for the widespread issue of male-committed violence in our society. Which is pretty grotesque.

                    • RedLogix …
                      4 May 2014 at 3:19 pm

                      @miravox

                      it’s false to say emotional violence is worse that physical violence, or even on the same level.

                      No – I am arguing that essentially all abuse regardless of it’s form is essentially emotional in nature.

                      @OAB

                      That quote from Gilligan is very pertinent is it not? But we seem to draw different conclusions from it.

                      As I said above, in my experience if you treat most people with a modicum of respect then they are unlikely to actively go out of their way to give you grief. There are of course exceptions.

                      Interestingly I’ve observed the one thing most women despise more in a man than bad hygiene is a ‘lack of self-respect’.

                      @DSS

                      I agree with you at each and every point. The extraordinary thing is however , despite this normalisation of violence in our society, most men are not actually routinely violent – most men don’t wake up in the morning thinking ‘who can I bash today?’

                      There is of course an abnormal, dysfunctional underclass (for want of a better word) who do think it is their right to smash up their families. At no point have I even hinted that these bastards be let off the hook – there is every reason to keep making them an issue.

                      concluded that 33 to 39% of New Zealand women experience physical and/or sexual violence from an intimate partner during their lifetimes, and that 4.9% of NZ women suffered moderate to severe physical violence or sexual abuse at least once in the previous 12 months. ….. This is a shocking statistic…..

                      That would tend to confirm that the repeat offenders, the ones routinely using violence against their partners, do form about 5% of the male population. They form a very problematic group, but a minority all the same.

                      Of course it also tells us that some 65% of women never experience violence in their lifetime. How remarkable is that – in a society you tell me is saturated in it! And while there is no specific frequency breakdown for the remaining 35% it is reasonable to suggest that for many (but not all) – serious violence is still rare on the scale of their entire lives. Probably only a handful of incidents at most. Which of course does not excuse them or minimise the impact on each of those women – but does rather suggest that there are not hordes of vicious male oiks out there raping and smashing women for the sheer atavistic thrill of it.

                      Because while we continue to make this minority of violent males the main event unfortunately also means that in practise we we are making them the only event. Continuing to exclusively conceive partner abuse as purely a ‘male perpetrator/female victim’ gender problem, is I’m arguing, missing a bigger and more complex picture – that partner abuse is primarily a human and relational problem, and should be framed in those terms.

                      Then we open the door to exploring the connections between social, economic and hierarchical inequality, why some societies are more violent than others – and what the broader political implications are.

                    • Ennui …
                      4 May 2014 at 5:54 pm

                      Tracey, my answer? Some “wisdom”…what to do? Men will be men and women will be women. They are human and to be human is to err. But we err within the boundaries of learned experience. Two ways we learn, absorption through observation (cultural) and trying something and making a mistake (personal). Bit esoteric I know but to command does not teach, to lead by example does. The answer is exactly that, good role models doing the right thing, challenging learned culture, and encouraging positive actions.

                      (Kindly with forgiveness)

                    • weka …
                      4 May 2014 at 7:23 pm

                      “Sadly – and I mean that – the more recent research on this suggests this just ain’t so. Turns out that if you exclude the dangerous physical violence (but leave in the pushing, shoving and slapping that doesn’t typically lead to visible injury, hospitalisation and visits from the police) that both genders are guilty of physical, sexual and emotional abuse at comparable rates.”

                      Can you please link to that Red, so we know what you are referring to?

                  • vto …
                    4 May 2014 at 2:54 pm

                    bullshit weka.

                    you and tracey are cut from the same cloth in that you just cannot seem to understand what some people say. and seem bemused that people cannot see that your view is all encompassing of a particular issue.

                    the only false frame is the one that you place things into. it is your reading, not others writing. you should learn that.

            • phillip ure 5.1.1.2.1.4
              3 May 2014 at 11:45 am

              you are quoting david garrets friend..?…(!)

              ..who is one of the more reactionary denizens of the kiwiblog swamp..

              ..(and that’s saying something..)

              ..um..!..why..?

              ..and she supports ‘kicking’ 13 yr olds..?

              ..no surprises there..so..

              and..yr point..?

    • Tracey 5.2
      3 May 2014 at 9:20 am

      thanks for this pete.

      kelvin not being in labour on higher list before is one of this lots biggest shames

  6. karol 6
    3 May 2014 at 7:43 am

    Gordon Campbell makes a good argument for Williamson’s actions requiring him to resign as an MP. Campbell says that Wiliamson will probably be given just a temporary stand down from the cabinet.

    By contrast, section 116 of the Crimes Act indicates that if you or I had acted or conspired to “obstruct, prevent, pervert, or defeat the course of justice” we would be facing up to seven years in prison.

    This intervention should have seen Williamson being asked to resign from Parliament, not simply to take a breather from his ministerial duties. After all, as the email/phone logs make clear, Williamson’s interference was described by the Police as being in his role as an MP. It was not his ministerial behaviour that triggered his resignation, it was the abuse of his role as an electorate MP.

    • Pete George 6.1
      3 May 2014 at 7:54 am

      Williamson in his initial statement said:

      I have given the Prime Minister an absolute assurance I was not trying to influence police processes and I was only doing the normal job of an MP.

      “In 26 years as an MP when I have hung up the phone from a call to ACC or the police or the health board advocating on behalf of somebody I’ve always thought that was my job and I wasn’t crossing a line.

      “However it has become clear that the police believe that it does cross a line, the Prime Minister thinks that it was inappropriate for me to have made the call.”

      SHe makes it clear he thought it was “doing the normal job of an MP”. So Campbell is right, if it crosses a line it’s an MP line, he wasn’t acting as a minister.

      • mickysavage 6.1.1
        3 May 2014 at 9:38 am

        This was a smokescreen that you are perpetuating Pete. There is a clear understanding that the Police should fulfil their functions independent of political interference and Williamson crossed the line. This is why he resigned. The case was too clear for National to ignore.

        • Sacha 6.1.1.1
          3 May 2014 at 10:02 am

          The wife-beater in question is not based in Williamson’s electorate. And the cabinet manual leaves absolutely no doubt about what is expected of Ministers around contact with Police.

          People trying to find excuses for Maurice’s behaviour (including himself) are revealing their own morality.

          • freedom 6.1.1.1.1
            3 May 2014 at 10:41 am

            Exactly Sacha,

            We are talking about a case involving assault.

            Assault, at its most basic interpretation, is an act of violence committed on another person.

            It comes down to this:
            A: Williamson knew all the details from Liu before making the call.
            B: Williamson did not know all the details from Liu before making the call.

            either way, the phone should not have been touched

            • Descendant Of Sssmith 6.1.1.1.1.1
              3 May 2014 at 11:51 am

              “advocating on behalf of somebody”

              So he’s advocating for who? Not a constituent and not someone who had approached him about the issue.

              And the request to the police was to review the case because he had invested in NZ – how is that advocating?

              That’s trying to pull rank and exert power. That’s trying to curry favour with the accused. That’s trying to protect some unknown interests.

              State Services Commission should be stepping in here as well.

              Isn’t their job to protect people in the public service from political influence?

              Didn’t IRD staff get fired for nosying where they were not supposed to?

              You cannot, cannot, cannot advocate for someone you have no authority to advocate for and who has not asked you to.

              This isn’t a new MP – this is an experienced MP who knows the rules.

              • Draco T Bastard …
                3 May 2014 at 1:47 pm

                +1

              • Tracey …
                3 May 2014 at 3:02 pm

                NEWSFLASH

                PM READS CABINET MANUAL

                After 6 years as prime minister mr key lets slip today that he, or someone authorised to read on his behalf, has read the cabinet manual.

                ” Key said the event clearly breached the Cabinet manual, but had already paid for it. “

                • Treetop …
                  3 May 2014 at 5:09 pm

                  Police district commanders need to read their best practise manuals as well.

      • Stephanie Rodgers 6.1.2
        3 May 2014 at 10:43 am

        This is complete rubbish. Not only for the reasons others have said, but because there’s a clear difference between advocating on behalf of people to get their ACC claims fixed or to report concerns to the police or health board, and interfering with an assault case, including telling the police about how wealthy and important the accused is.

      • Draco T Bastard 6.1.3
        3 May 2014 at 1:46 pm

        Yeah, he’s going to say that isn’t he but if it was true he wouldn’t have been calling.

    • One Anonymous Bloke 6.2
      3 May 2014 at 8:02 am

      Hollow, hypocritical, and hyper-sensitive to the needs of its donors. If only Kim Dotcom had committed domestic violence or was selling booze to kids – rather than annoying Hollywood tycoons – the Key government would have come racing to his assistance.

      Ouch. I suppose it would be churlish to say “I told you so”, but hey, New Zealand, we told you so!

    • yeshe 6.3
      3 May 2014 at 9:20 am

      Hi Karol … but Liu was not a constituent of Williamson’s electorate, according to TV3 interview with him one day last week … I’m not sure how this could mean he was acting as an MP ?

      • karol 6.3.1
        3 May 2014 at 4:43 pm

        The emails between police that followed up on Wiliamson’s phone call referred to him as an MP not a minister. Also, part of Williamson’s defence is that does what he can to support his constituents, locally. And he puts his phone call re-Liu into that category. – see the transcript from The Nation today.

  7. Gruntie 7
    3 May 2014 at 10:31 am

    A reporter has told me Mr Liu is now seeking to be discharged without conviction – that indicates a high level of remorse, self awareness, insight and personal accountability – not.

  8. Gruntie 8
    3 May 2014 at 11:23 am

    Maybe not an All Black but a “rock star” – under National Govt view of the economy

  9. captain hook 9
    3 May 2014 at 11:56 am

    I guess Morris’ pals wife just slipped on a banana skin?

    • Draco T Bastard 10.1
      3 May 2014 at 9:27 pm

      That’s why he wasn’t charged. If he had been and found guilty, which is probable IMO, then he would a) be out of this government and John Key’s reign ends and b) unable to stand again – ever.

  11. Tracey 11
    3 May 2014 at 3:26 pm

    does mr williamsons penchant for going the extra yards for wealthy businessmen change the gist of this at all?

    ” The donation scandal engulfing Act leader John Banks spread last night as it emerged he lobbied personal friend and Government minister Maurice Williamson over internet tycoon and donor Kim Dotcom

    Mr Williamson, the Minister of Land Information, last night admitted Mr Banks had lobbied him over a property purchase in Coatesville, just north of Auckland, Dotcom wanted to make. …

    Mr Williamson said: “John Banks did call me to advocate on behalf of Kim Dotcom with regard to the OIO [Overseas Investment Office] application on the Coatesville property. Mr Banks and I have been good friends for years. It is a matter of record that the ministers considered the application, but declined it.”

    Dotcom told the Herald Mr Banks referred to being “very close” to Williamson, whose approval was necessary before he could buy the $30 million Coatesville mansion he rents.

    He said the comment was made by Mr Banks in reference to his application to buy the mansion.

    “He said he knows lots of people from when he was a minister. He knows Williamson … They are very close.”

    Dotcom said he believed Mr Banks spoke positively to Mr Williamson about his application.

    Overseas Investment Office officials left the decision on the application to ministers, and Mr Williamson approved it in April last year.

    But it was eventually declined after it was rejected by Associate Finance Minister Simon Power.

    Three months after approving it, Mr Williamson changed his mind and joined Mr Power in rejecting 

    "

    • freedom 11.1
      3 May 2014 at 3:40 pm

      The good ship Integrity has lost its mast
      the rudder is splitting
      the hull seems to be leaking
      and don’t those those trade winds just blow every which way

    • karol 11.2
      3 May 2014 at 5:03 pm

      Oh – and Banks lawyers are trying to get details of the criminal convictions Dotcom declared in his immigration application. Pr4esumably Banks and Williamson also knew about these convictions at the time they were supporting Dotcom? So now Banks wants to use that against KDC?

      Official Information Act material released by Immigration NZ in 2012 showed Mr Dotcom had declared two criminal convictions from Germany.

      The information, released to media, showed the convictions were voluntarily declared because no formal record of them existed after being wiped by the Germany’s “clean slate”-style legislation.

      Documents show Mr Dotcom’s immigration agency volunteered the details that he had convictions – which had expired – for computer hacking and insider trading.

  12. coolas 12
    3 May 2014 at 5:53 pm

    “Domestic or intimate partner violence … consistently under-reported or not treated seriously by law enforcement (especially if the accused abuser is rich or famous).”

    Spot on. Major element. Domestic violence is behind closed doors, and that’s where most of it stays. Shame based covering-up is deeply entrenched in NZ, and for me, that’s why Williamson’s intervention was despicable. He was pleading for the perpetrator without regard to the courage of the victims who laid the complaints. And we can be sure that those complaints were the last in a long history of abuse from Lui.

    Did Williamson even think about the victims? Nah, he was thinking about donations and kick-backs
    like the bach next door he could use for free.

    Moral scum is Maurice.

    • One Anonymous Bloke 12.1
      3 May 2014 at 6:35 pm

      Shame based covering up.

      Nail, meet head.

      In Maurice’s defence, shame based covering up is deeply entrenched in our culture, our morality.

  13. greywarbler 13
    3 May 2014 at 10:05 pm

    RL
    It is not possible to have a discussion or argument on the matter of male violence against women. Certain women have copyrighted the script and will allow no deviation from the text. Follow correct procedure or do not comment is the unwritten rule.

    • Tracey 13.1
      4 May 2014 at 12:25 pm

      i call bullshit on that grey.

      of course it is an emotive issue, for some, especially victims. but that doesnt mean i am not capable of having a reasoned discussion about it.

      i wish it were emotive enough to make some decent change.

      i didnt report my abuser to the police. i didnt tell my mother til i was 19. it still wasnt reported then.

      this is complex for sure but not as complex as some are making out.

      redlogix talked about a small minority of men being violent and then someone posted to research suggesting a third of women suffer physical or sexual abuse from a partner at least once in a lifetime. that is not a small inority by any stretch.

      my experience wasnt reported. ergo it doesnt exist statistically.

      maurice williamson chose to support the kiwi who was accused of perpetrating. he hasnt once mentioned the victims.

      he was shocked because liu had a clean record…

      a. all crminals had a clean record before their first offence,
      b. was mr liu’s crminal record genuine,
      c. is domestic violence regarded as criminal in chine,
      d. can you buy your way off a charge in chinato keep a clean record

      women have been quietly, largely unsupported and largely under funded trying to address their side of this issue, especially the leaving part, for centuries. the kinds of things that stop such action point toward,male control be it the perpetrator through fear, the police through disinterest or the justice system through feigned helplessness.

      a domestic violence report ordered under urgency and delivered in december 2013 has still notseen the light of day.

      the irony of some of the comments in this thread is the biggest stumbling blocks to overcpming domestic and sexual violence is girls and women blame themselves too much, and boys and men dont hold themselves responsible enough.

      • greywarbler 13.1.1
        4 May 2014 at 1:08 pm

        My point was that there are women who do not want to discuss the sexual violence problem, they just want to state grievances and also to control all aspects of any discussion that does arise.

        Basically what is done is to repeat angrily and sorrowfully the latest case and statistic in the continually long line, and to say males are allowing it to continue, even conniving in it. Which is true.

        But ways of lessening and eventually reducing it to a rare event, are not going to be ever discovered by discussion because there are too many barriers, minds are too closed to partial solutions, and other reasons such as attack on what is acceptable language so that every point must be made in a reverential way. Cf Stephanie criticising part of a comment above.

        You would be interested in what Laura Bates had to say this morning on radionz
        http://www.radionz.co.nz/national/programmes/sunday
        Everyday Sexism ( 18′ 45″ )
        10:20 UK-born Laura Bates is the founder of the Everyday Sexism project, a collection
        of over 10,000 women’s daily experiences of gender inequality.

        • Tracey 13.1.1.1
          4 May 2014 at 1:37 pm

          i think most women here do want to discuss solutions but someone, a vto, or a pete george, or a redlogix, comes in and either posts something inflammatory in its ignorance or clumsily tries to say something which is easily misconstrued.

          please name or link to the women you refer to and i will try to find instances of where they tried to discuss solutions.

    • Stephanie Rodgers 13.2
      4 May 2014 at 3:16 pm

      This is actually funny to me in the context of comments above. Kelvin Davis is a man, after all, who has made very clear statements about the issue of domestic and sexual violence and proposed to take action in conjunction with expert agencies about it when he’s in Parliament.

      Yet it is the men, like Pete and RedLogix, who have ‘allowed no deviation from the text’ – i.e. ‘stop saying it’s just men, stop saying it’s just men, women are violent too, it’s not just men.’

      The only unwritten rule here is that whenever a serious discussion about the reality of domestic violence occurs, it must be derailed and disrupted by constant insistence that nobody talk about the reality of domestic violence, which is that the absolute majority of it is committed by men against women.

      • Tracey 13.2.1
        4 May 2014 at 3:20 pm

        is it just me, or is there some deep irony in some of the comments here, mostly recentlyby vto?

        • vto 13.2.1.1
          4 May 2014 at 3:28 pm

          you are straight out of the 1950’s tracey, role reversal… “god, I get sick of these moaning women Trev, they don’t know how bloody good they’ve got it”.

          • Tracey 13.2.1.1.1
            4 May 2014 at 3:32 pm

            be wary of going through life seeing only what you want to see, it can making passing a mirror very uncomfortable.

      • vto 13.2.2
        4 May 2014 at 3:21 pm

        Yes some people do raise that point Stepahinie Rodgers. Often.

        Why is that do you think? Have you ever given it more than a glancing thought? Because certainly the likes of tracey never have.

      • RedLogix 13.2.3
        4 May 2014 at 3:56 pm

        the reality of domestic violence, which is that the absolute majority of it is committed by men against women.

        Which is a point of contention. There is of course another way to interpret it.

        The data clearly shows that a small minority of men (probably about 5%) are responsible for most of the dangerous physical and sexual violence against women. They are certainly the ones responsible for most of the repeat and routine violence that the police and courts deal with.

        It also shows that a larger group of men occasionally get caught up in situations where their level of maturity, drunkenness, stress or plain stupidity causes them to lash out. They frequently learn the lesson from it and rarely, if ever repeat the mistake.

        And then there is a majority of men who simply never strike a woman in their lives.

        But of course dangerous physical and sexual violence are not the only forms that DV takes. When it comes to all these other forms it does appear to be a more equal opportunity business with both genders participating at similar rates. The only unwritten rule seems to be that this can never be mentioned without accusations of derailment and disruption being made.

        • One Anonymous Bloke 13.2.3.1
          4 May 2014 at 4:07 pm

          I brought it up before:

          “…provoked by the experience of feeling shamed and humiliated, disrespected and ridiculed…”

          However, note that Gilligan cites the feelings as the source of the violence and not the external factors the feelings are a response to.

          • RedLogix 13.2.3.1.1
            4 May 2014 at 4:23 pm

            True enough OAB. Humans never be disconnected from their feelings. You really cannot turn them off.

            Because the shame, humiliation, disrespect and ridicule are just as real in the mind of the person who lashes out, as in the person that finishes up on the receiving end of their violence.

            You wouldn’t dream of telling a beaten child – ‘it’s just bad feelings – you can learn to ignore them’ would you?

            And while this confirms that the root of all abuse is essentially emotional, I’m thinking we have to look further to find a way out of the cul-de-sac.

            What of course we can learn to control is the actions we choose to make in response.

            • weka 13.2.3.1.1.1
              4 May 2014 at 7:30 pm

              “And while this confirms that the root of all abuse is essentially emotional,”

              Apart from the societal constructs that create cultures of socially sanctioned violence.

              • RedLogix …
                4 May 2014 at 8:03 pm

                You don’t get to address one comment absent the context of many hundreds of others I’ve made over the years. You know perfectly well that I’m not ignoring or minimising the culture of socially sanctioned violence we all grow up in.

                Quite the very opposite. I’ve done my level best all my life to step outside of it, repudiate it and conciously choose against it. Often to my own social detriment in male circles.

                It’s part of why I spent so much of my youth deep in the forests and mountains often on my own – to get some distance from a world I didn’t much like or identify with.

                But here is the strange thing. Despite this cultural saturation – it turns out that that I wasn’t all that different to most men, and we actually abhor violence and will do anything to avoid actual physical confrontation. Most of the time.

        • Stephanie Rodgers 13.2.3.2
          4 May 2014 at 5:39 pm

          I invite you to substantiate your claims, RL. Here’s my evidence:

          An article from an academic in the field of population health who notes that violence is not committed equally by men and women, that we cannot just blame a handful of men for giving everyone else a bad name, and that taking a gender-neutral approach has failed to address domestic violence :
          http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10896956

          And here’s a page from the New York Office for the Prevention of Domestic Violence which notes that while on face value, men and women both commit domestic violence, women’s violence is far more likely to be responsive:
          http://www.opdv.ny.gov/professionals/abusers/genderandipv.html

          This factsheet from the White Ribbon campaign explains why a focus on men’s violence is appropriate and why it’s not the same as women’s violence:

          This kind of approach to assessing violence has some serious deficiencies:
          – It ignores the context of the violence. Women are more likely to use violence in self defence.
          – It ignores the impact of the violence. Men’s violence is much more likely to result in serious
          injury.
          – It ignores the meaning of the violence. Men’s violence is much more likely to result in
          intimidation and fear.
          http://www.nnsvs.org.nz/sites/default/files/Fact_sheet_on_gender_and_family_violence_2009.pdf

          Here’s Women’s Refuge’s list of myths about domestic violence – including your favourite, ‘it’s just men who lose control’
          https://womensrefuge.org.nz/WR/Domestic%20violence/Common%20myths.htm

          Your turn.

          • RedLogix 13.2.3.2.1
            4 May 2014 at 8:33 pm

            I’ll focus on Peter Adam’s article for a start.

            As for his opener:

            We have watched politicians and officials taking a gender-neutral stance about violence in the home for decades.

            Well frankly he’s on another planet to my one. I simply don’t know how to respond to something that flatly contradicts my entire life experience. Every single “Stopping Violence” or “White Ribbon” campaign I’ve ever seen has focused exclusively on male on female violence.

            Our best evidence indicates about one-third of New Zealand women experience some form of violence from men in their lifetimes, and about one in 20 during the last year. Violence of this scale couldn’t be committed by a small number of pathological abusers.

            As I unpacked below I don’t agree with the conclusion Adams draws.

            What can be definitely stated from this quote is that about 5% of women experience repeated abuse in anyone year. That pretty strongly implies that it’s about 5% of men who are the repeat, routine abusers.

            One-third of women experiencing some form of violence from men in their lifetimes is a completely different statistic that really should not be put in the same sentence. The timelines are completely different.

            Nor does Adam bother separating out the dangerous, intimidating assaults (particular to male violence) from the more common kicks, shoves, slaps and grabs that both genders commit – but have been put into the same category.

            Nor does Adam both mentioning that two-thirds of women never experience some form of violence in their lifetime. Given that the average woman has more than 10 intimate partners in her life (and at least 3-4 of them significant ones) – that’s a pretty remarkably low rate of violence.

            Much of the rest of his article uses the fact that male violence is more visible, more frequently reported and convicted – to justify the idea that female abuse doesn’t exist and if it did – well who cares.

            As for your including your favourite, ‘it’s just men who lose control’ that just more dishonesty from you. So much so I’m beginning to think you are simply taunting me into saying something ‘aggressive’.

          • RedLogix 13.2.3.2.2
            4 May 2014 at 9:26 pm

            Secondly the NNVS link you gave is most helpful. It essentially confirms a great deal of what I am claiming and very usefully breaks down the different types of violence into four main types:

            Power and Control Violence: that is the domain who believe it their ‘right’ or ‘duty’ to control their family through intimidation and threats. I think we are all on the same page when we identify this as the type of abuse most harmful and most immediate concern.

            Defensive Violence: that occurs when victims fight back in the scenario above. Often of course women.

            Common Couple Violence: where adults use violence to resolve and argument. Both genders are equally involved. I’d argue this is the most common form of ‘tiff’ that while it is undesirable, and the children involved are upset by it, is not the primary concern as it rarely results in serious harm or long-term distress.

            Sociopathic Violence: the result of mental illness, brain damage or personalisty disorder. Considered the least common type.

            Once we separate these out though, the statistics take on a different light. I’d take a guess that the ‘Power and Control’ violence possibly represents somewhere between 25-35% of all DV incidents. Still leaves plenty of work for Women’s Refuge.

            At the same time – the inevitable conclusion to be drawn is that the fraction of males, routinely abusing, intimidating female partners to control them is actually pretty damned small. Which is not of course any sort of excuse or minimisation. Not a lot of people commit murder – but we still take it very seriously indeed.

            Nor is it any excuse to ignore, belittle and diminish all the other forms of nongender-specific partner abuse – which we don’t seem to be allowed to talk about.

            • Colonial Viper 13.2.3.2.2.1
              4 May 2014 at 10:09 pm

              Looking at a few more hard numbers. Most of the victims of “family violence homicides” are female, but the statistics are certainly not overwhelmingly so:

              1/3 of the adult victims are male, 2/3 are female. 39% of victims are Maori, 34% pakeha.

              Narrowing the definitions down, 78% of “partner homicides” are caused by men killing either their current partner or their ex. 22% of “partner homicides” fall into other categories (including a notable 9% – men killing their ex-partners new boyfriend).

              The striking statistic is that almost all those deaths are caused by men; very few are committed by women, although it is not unknown.

              http://www.areyouok.org.nz/files/statistics/ItsnotOK_recent_family_violence_stats.pdf

  14. Jilly Bee 14
    3 May 2014 at 11:00 pm

    Hmmmm – watching 3 News tonight – they showed a clip of Maurice Williamson having to be assisted from the set after his interview on ‘The Nation’, he looked in a slightly bad way. I am not trying to let him off the hook – I think he should be forced to resign his electorate seat as well, but he sure looked knackered.

    • Tracey 14.1
      4 May 2014 at 12:30 pm

      sadly i suspect the burden of his fall may be harder than actually accepting he did anything wrong.

      self responsibility and accountability can be draining.

      if he falls unwell it will have been of his own making. liu’s victims remain the only genuine victims in this saga so far.

  15. Ennui 15
    4 May 2014 at 1:02 pm

    Stephanie, I agree with most of your article but I have some difficulty with this statement:
    To get the basic poor assumption out of the way first, a clean record tells you only one thing: that a person has a clean record. It indicates a certain comparative level of lawfulness, but it’s not definitive proof that a person has always been law-abiding or well-behaved.
    What are you trying to say here, what are we getting out of the way first? Are you questioning how the hell anybody can assess a persons criminality (record or no record) for immigration purposes? Or are you suggesting something quite otherwise? I would love to know as you do seem keen to get this one “out of the way”.

    • Tracey 15.1
      4 May 2014 at 1:41 pm

      speaking for my interpretation i take it as meaning…

      i was sexually violated at age 11. the perpetrator had no previous criminal conviction, nor one after. in that situation not having a criminal conviction would be no real guide to her charachter or criminal tendancies.

    • Stephanie Rodgers 15.2
      4 May 2014 at 3:22 pm

      My point was there are many, many things wrong with Maurice Williamson’s statements. The first is his assumption that a clean record meant it was ‘shocking’ that Liu would be charged with assault – because as I say, all a clean record tells you is that up to that date, a person hasn’t been convicted of a crime.

      What I am questioning is the assumption that a person’s character, good or bad, is ‘proven’ by their criminal record. It’s probably an instrument we need to use for immigration purposes because it’s an easy enough yes/no kind of question, but it’s a blunt one.

      • Ennui 15.2.1
        4 May 2014 at 5:45 pm

        Fair enough: seems to me there are a lot of assumptions, from us, from him, from everybody. I think that this is going to be an interesting event for National and Williamson: my “assumption” is that a whole lot more will surface. That I await with quiet confidence. There again I could be wrong……

  16. aerobubble 16
    4 May 2014 at 1:11 pm

    Key said, when asked about why he still trusted Banks, that Banks had no motive in taking money from Dotcom and hiding its source, and so what, Key says, he lost. As if Key thought winning was all that actually matters, electoral law be damned.

  17. vto 17
    4 May 2014 at 3:05 pm

    I think you answer your own post stepahnie Rodgers. You use the word “assumption” a few times and that is it.

    The leap is astounding and the framing intense.

    No wonder comments are all over the show and of little value.

    • One Anonymous Bloke 17.1
      4 May 2014 at 3:18 pm

      Passive aggressive gibberish, vto. I know you peer myopically through a distorting lens at this issue, so your response to Stephanie’s post is hardly surprising, but perhaps you can be a little more specific?

      What framing are you referring to? I don’t think you have an answer.

      • Stephanie Rodgers 17.1.1
        4 May 2014 at 3:30 pm

        I think vto is trying to turn the tables on those of us who are refusing to let this conversation be derailed, as it always is, by a few people who just keep saying ‘it’s not just men, it’s not just men, it’s not just men’ and offer nothing else.

        vto, like greywarbler, appears to want to paint this as ‘evil women who hate all men just want to say men are always violent, so they hate men who say women are violent too.’ The problem is that anyone looking at this discussion can see quite clearly what’s going on. No one is saying ‘all men’ or ‘only men’ are violent. Nobody is denying that women can be violent and abusive (whether psychological or physical).

        What we are saying, and what I will continue to say, because saying it is important: the vast majority of domestic sexual violence is committed by men. It is not taken seriously by our society. It is not treated as a ‘real’ crime in many cases. Maurice Williamson’s attitude illustrates this. If we’re going to fix it, we need to acknowledge the reality of it.

        • vto 17.1.1.1
          4 May 2014 at 3:34 pm

          point 17 is thereby confirmed and stands.

          • One Anonymous Bloke 17.1.1.1.1
            4 May 2014 at 3:44 pm

            No answer then?

            Say goodbye to “got nothing” misery with all new humility and open-mindedness.

            • vto 17.1.1.1.1.1
              4 May 2014 at 3:47 pm

              piss off oab

              assumption bullshit all over the whole place. suits the issue though so may as well run with it, facts or otherwise.

              cred zero

              this is exactly like QoT reading about a bunch of grey-haired elderly in Devonport attending a meeting about iwi claims on the naval land and making an entire world of assumptions to support her personal ideas on the racism of the grey-haired elderly in Devonport. Fact-less, assumption-loaded.

              • One Anonymous Bloke …
                4 May 2014 at 3:51 pm

                🙄

                Got nothing. Incapable of pointing to the problem in the article. Blithering incompetence.

        • Tracey 17.1.1.2
          4 May 2014 at 3:37 pm

          thank you for your clarity.

        • Colonial Viper 17.1.1.3
          4 May 2014 at 3:49 pm

          It is not taken seriously by our society. It is not treated as a ‘real’ crime in many cases. Maurice Williamson’s attitude illustrates this. If we’re going to fix it, we need to acknowledge the reality of it.

          For the sake of clarity, who is the “WE’RE” and the “WE” that you are referring to here, please.

          • McFlock 17.1.1.3.1
            4 May 2014 at 4:04 pm

            That’s up to you, CV.

            You can choose a group that includes both Stephanie and you, or you can choose a group that includes Stephanie but not you.

            VTO’s obviously made his choice. It’s a decision for each of us to make.

            • vto 17.1.1.3.1.1
              4 May 2014 at 4:07 pm

              yes obviously…. sheesh

              what is this? assumptionland?

            • Colonial Viper 17.1.1.3.1.2
              4 May 2014 at 4:43 pm

              That’s up to you, CV.

              Doubtful. I wanted to know who Stephanie Rodgers meant when she said “we’re” and “we” and it didn’t strike me that she intended that group be up to every individuals own arbitrary definition, as you are reading it as.

              • McFlock …
                4 May 2014 at 7:14 pm

                No, not arbitrary definition.

                But we all have a choice as to whether we are in the group that takes it seriously.

                • RedLogix …
                  4 May 2014 at 7:31 pm

                  Have you dragged yourself out of bed three times in the just last two months to intervene in a neighbour’s shouting match that sounded like it was getting out of control? I have.

                  Have you stared down a drugged-up tenant with a knife, to give his girlfriend space to get out of the house. I have.

                  Have you had to help hold down an enraged, drunken Samoan (I’m no weed but this dude made me feel like one) trying to stop his ex-wife from moving her things out? I have.

                  How dare you assume CV or I ‘don’t take it seriously’.

                  • McFlock …
                    4 May 2014 at 8:03 pm

                    Some similar situations. Managed to avoid knives so far, though.

                    I merely pointed out that we have a choice as individuals whether we take it seriously. This doesn’t just include direct intervention when it’s in your face (creditable though that is). It also includes whether we deflect discussion from the major contributors and the majority of the most serious incidents each and every time the issue is discussed in public.

                    If you think that hat fits, well – tough.

                    • RedLogix …
                      4 May 2014 at 8:46 pm

                      Sorry but disagreeing with someone, or presenting an alternative perspective is not ‘deflecting, disrupting or de-railing’.

                      Those responses have all too often become a lazy dodge for simply not having a decent argument or simply not wanting to see past your currently fixed viewpoint.

                      Expecting, demanding, everyone think the same as you has to be the ultimate totalitarian instinct of all.

                      Put it this way. Feminism took on this battle forty years ago. And so far their tactics have gotten us how far? Worth re-thinking the plan a little?

                    • weka …
                      4 May 2014 at 9:17 pm

                      You think feminism hasn’t made change in society re domestic and sexual violence? Seriously?

                      No-one is telling you what to think or believe. They’re just calling you on those beliefs and the statements you are making.

                      From above,

                      “That is just wrong imo – the difference is that predominately men abuse women – physically, emotionally, and all the other – allys you may be able to think of.”

                      Sadly – and I mean that – the more recent research on this suggests this just ain’t so. Turns out that if you exclude the dangerous physical violence (but leave in the pushing, shoving and slapping that doesn’t typically lead to visible injury, hospitalisation and visits from the police) that both genders are guilty of physical, sexual and emotional abuse at comparable rates.

                      Can you please link to the research you are referring to?

                    • karol …
                      4 May 2014 at 9:31 pm

                      But “dangerous physical violence” is the core of domestic violence.

                      See the first few pages of this book, which refers to it as “intimate terrorism” that is largely perpetrated by men in heterosexual relationships.

                    • RedLogix …
                      4 May 2014 at 9:34 pm

                      You think feminism hasn’t made change in society re domestic and sexual violence? Seriously?

                      Well I’m not sure how you can have it both ways – telling us that the statistics are still so very dreadful after all these years AND at the same time claim that you have made huge progress.

                      I lean towards the later interpretation. My own partner is very convinced of the beneficial changes that have been made in her lifetime.

                      I covered your second question at 13.2.3.2.2 in reply to Stephanie.

                    • McFlock …
                      4 May 2014 at 9:41 pm

                      Sorry but disagreeing with someone, or presenting an alternative perspective is not ‘deflecting, disrupting or de-railing’.

                      Once or twice? Indeed not.

                      But saying the same thing clumsily each and every tme a topic comes up is a bit like the loud drunk at the party who thinks nobody heard his really funny line so yells it fifty times, not picking up that people heard it and understood it but it was not as funny as he thought.

                    • RedLogix …
                      4 May 2014 at 10:00 pm

                      Oh shaming as a silencing technique. Classy McFlock.

                      Here’s a thing. As should be obvious by now both vto and I have been on the wrong end of some pretty serious abuse by women. vto is still pretty angry about it. I’m a bit more ambivalent, but as time goes by I find I’m less and less willing to pretend it never happened.

                      Yet everyone else here shames, ridicules, belittles and discounts our experience insisting that it is only male on female violence that has any importance. At all.

                      Think about it dude.

                    • Colonial Viper …
                      4 May 2014 at 10:18 pm

                      Here’s a thing. As should be obvious by now both vto and I have been on the wrong end of some pretty serious abuse by women.

                      And I know a bit about how both of you feel, having been there myself when I was younger and even having had the police involved. I like to think that I am older and wiser now – a pleasant conceit – and I certainly do not underestimate any more what kind of violent physical force a woman can deliver.

                    • weka …
                      4 May 2014 at 10:30 pm

                      “Yet everyone else here shames, ridicules, belittles and discounts our experience insisting that it is only male on female violence that has any importance. At all.”

                      No. They. Don’t.

                      Take a step back Red and think about what you just wrote and what it is that you feel is belittling of your personal experiences.

                      Please show me where I have ridiculed or belittled your or vto’s experiences? Please show me where I have said that only male on female violence is important? Please show me where others have done this too. Link specifically and explain how the comment is belittling, shaming etc.

                      What is happening in these conversations is that people are not willing to let you redefine domestic violence as a non-gendered issue. That is not the same as saying ‘it’s all men’s fault’, or ‘only men are violent’ or ‘only violence against women is important’. It’s also not the same as saying that your experiences are unimportant. I think you are confusing individual experiences with politics.

                      I understand you feel shamed by what was done to you, and I’m sorry you have had those experiences. I think most people in this conversation would agree that there isn’t enough support for men who have been in your situation. Many women would also sympathise because they know what it’s like to not be supported.

                      I think it’s very difficult to bring unresolved personal experiences into political discussions of this kind because the lines blurr between the political and the personal. To me it looks like you want to define the politics in a way that makes sense of your experiences, but that definition is at odds with the huge amounts of work that have been done on this for decades. That definition also tries to rewrite the experiences of many, many, many people.

                      The fact that most domestic violence is committed by men, and that there are political responses to that doesn’t diminish the reality of the harm you have suffered.

                    • weka …
                      4 May 2014 at 10:38 pm

                      “You think feminism hasn’t made change in society re domestic and sexual violence? Seriously?”

                      Well I’m not sure how you can have it both ways – telling us that the statistics are still so very dreadful after all these years AND at the same time claim that you have made huge progress.

                      Ah, an answer befitting PG.

                      I covered your second question at 13.2.3.2.2 in reply to Stephanie.

                      Actually you didn’t. Stephanie’s link doesn’t say what you think it does.

                      I’d like you to link to the ‘recent research’ that supports what you said here:

                      “That is just wrong imo – the difference is that predominately men abuse women – physically, emotionally, and all the other – allys you may be able to think of.”

                      Sadly – and I mean that – the more recent research on this suggests this just ain’t so. Turns out that if you exclude the dangerous physical violence (but leave in the pushing, shoving and slapping that doesn’t typically lead to visible injury, hospitalisation and visits from the police) that both genders are guilty of physical, sexual and emotional abuse at comparable rates.

                      Actual studies please.

                    • RedLogix …
                      4 May 2014 at 10:52 pm

                      weka,

                      To your considerable credit you are one commenter who has not resorted to any of those tactics. It is why I try to respond to your contributions to the best of my ability.

                      But a quick scan of the thread, not to mention McFlocks little gem above, is full of those tactics, both overt and covert. Or if you cannot see it, then might I respectfully suggest that you don’t get to define it.

                      I can only respond with my own question: where have I at any point suggested that there is not a small minority of men who routinely use physical and sexual violence to control and intimidate their partners (not to mention kill and maim). Where have I suggested that this is not a serious challenge or that it should not be taken seriously?

                      To me it looks like you want to define the politics in a way that makes sense of your experiences, but that definition is at odds with the huge amounts of work that have been done on this for decades. That definition also tries to rewrite the experiences of many, many, many people.

                      And yet because almost all that work has been predominantly focused on male on female abuse – it rewrites the experience of a whole lot of other people who typically remain very, very silent.

                      But otherwise weka thank you for hearing me. It means a lot.

                    • RedLogix …
                      4 May 2014 at 11:01 pm

                      Actual studies weka?

                      Well google gives a lot of hits, although it’s hard to know which ones are credible or not. How about this one ?

                      http://www.csulb.edu/~mfiebert/assault.htm

                    • McFlock …
                      4 May 2014 at 11:15 pm

                      Oh shaming as a silencing technique. Classy McFlock.

                      Not silencing. Just trying to get you to a volume where we can actually hear what you say.

                      I’m sad about what happened to you, but that doesn’t mean you’re incapable actually, say, giving evidence to support your claims and stats, or taking care to actually express a point clearly.

                      But yes, my comment was “shaming”. Because nothing else, from many commenters here, has worked. And that’s a good sign that I’m beginning to get fucked off, because that affects my communication skills. So I’m going to do what I tend to do with other topics that piss me offto the point of insensibility, which is to leave it alone.

                    • weka …
                      4 May 2014 at 11:43 pm

                      “But a quick scan of the thread, not to mention McFlocks little gem above, is full of those tactics, both overt and covert. Or if you cannot see it, then might I respectfully suggest that you don’t get to define it.”

                      Leaving McFlock aside (because I don’t think they were talking about your experiences of being a victim of domestic violence), can you please be more specific? Just pick a couple of comments where you feel someone was belittingly your experiences and shaming you. Because I don’t see people doing that about your experience of being on the receiving end of violence. This is where I think the personal and political are getting mixed up, and I think it would help to clarify.

                      I can only respond with my own question: where have I at any point suggested that there is not a small minority of men who routinely use physical and sexual violence to control and intimidate their partners (not to mention kill and maim). Where have I suggested that this is not a serious challenge or that it should not be taken seriously?

                      I htink that’s a red herrring to be honest. I pointed out the problems of joining in with PG’s false framing the other day. Others have commented since pretty clearly too. I don’t want to rehash that except to say that your comments consistently come across as trying to alter perceptions of domestic violence by evening out the playing field somehow. It doesn’t work.

                      “To me it looks like you want to define the politics in a way that makes sense of your experiences, but that definition is at odds with the huge amounts of work that have been done on this for decades. That definition also tries to rewrite the experiences of many, many, many people.”

                      And yet because almost all that work has been predominantly focused on male on female abuse – it rewrites the experience of a whole lot of other people who typically remain very, very silent.

                      The reason so much of the work has been focussed that way is because that’s reflects what is actually happening. And if you look at that body of work time, you will see that men (and people involved in gay/trans violence issues) have spoken out about their needs and things have changed. Not enough, but that’s an experience we all share.

                      I said many, many, many people for a reason. Like many others I’ve listened to men’s stories as well as women’s and my comment still stands about what you are trying to do.

                      But otherwise weka thank you for hearing me. It means a lot.

                      You are welcome.

                      Actual studies weka?

                      Well google gives a lot of hits, although it’s hard to know which ones are credible or not. How about this one ?

                      http://www.csulb.edu/~mfiebert/assault.htm

                      Sorry, but I want references for what you have been reading that back up your claim. Random google hits don’t count (and the link you give doesn’t contain studies that support what you said anyway).

                    • RedLogix …
                      5 May 2014 at 12:32 am

                      I don’t want to rehash that except to say that your comments consistently come across as trying to alter perceptions of domestic violence by evening out the playing field somehow.

                      Well yes that’s exactly what I want. But if you want to interpret that as somehow diminishing the specific role male violence plays, despite my emphatic and clear statements to the contrary – then I cannot think what to say further.

                      I don’t spend my life reading up on this – the link I gave seemed a fairly comprehensive meta-study covering lots of ground. Much of which fairly plainly references partner abuse by both genders.

                      Clearly each gender has quite different patterns of actual abuse. I’m not making them equivalent in that sense, but I am saying that the underlying, common, feature of all abuse is the emotional and psychological harm it causes.

                      And that is why I want the ‘playing field’ leveled out a bit.

                      And advance apologies to McFlock if this is unclear or clumsy.

                      Edit: It took an hour or two of banging about, and it quickly becomes apparent this issue is intensely polarised and controversial; but this article seems to cover the bases for me.

                      http://thefeministwire.com/2013/03/feminist-anxiety-about-domestic-violence-against-men/

                    • Pete George …
                      5 May 2014 at 7:06 am

                      weka, there are many examples that this thread “is full of those tactics, both overt and covert.” You and others have tried to shut out other opinions, and you try it again in this comment – ” I pointed out the problems of joining in with PG’s false framing the other day.”

                      There are numerous examples on this thread of you trying to discredit, exclude and shut down views, including making false claims.

                      @weka

                      Yes, and Red too. Both Red and vto do a similar kind of false framing as PG.

                      http://thestandard.org.nz/what-maurice-williamsons-shock-tells-us-about-domestic-violence/#comment-808289

                      Just after that comment Redlogix joined the discussion.

                      ‘False framing’ seems to mean little more than you want to dictate what is discussed and you want to shut out some aspects of a complex issue.

                    • weka …
                      5 May 2014 at 7:43 pm

                      …
                      5 May 2014 at 7:06 am

                      weka, there are many examples that this thread “is full of those tactics, both overt and covert.” You and others have tried to shut out other opinions, and you try it again in this comment – ” I pointed out the problems of joining in with PG’s false framing the other day.”

                      There are numerous examples on this thread of you trying to discredit, exclude and shut down views, including making false claims.

                      yadda, yadda, yawn. So why not give say three specific examples so we can know what you are talking about?


                      @weka

                      "Yes, and Red too. Both Red and vto do a similar kind of false framing as PG."

                      http://thestandard.org.nz/what-maurice-williamsons-shock-tells-us-about-domestic-violence/#comment-808289

                      Just after that comment Redlogix joined the discussion.

                      ‘False framing’ seems to mean little more than you want to dictate what is discussed and you want to shut out some aspects of a complex issue.

                      That was an observation, and part of a context that was a conversation between Tracey and myself. If you disagree with the observation, then make a case. Merely repeatedly alleging that all I am doing is shutting down coversation without actually providing evidence that I am (and I think that Red and my ongoing conversation on this completely nulls your point).

                      You don’t understand what the false frame is, so all you can do is try and make out that I am doing something wrong. Grow up.

                    • weka …
                      5 May 2014 at 7:50 pm

                      Red, I don’t think you can level the playing field, that’s the whole point. In my own politics, the solution for men as victims of domestic abuse is for them to be empowered to sort that out in a good way for them and all people. Feminism worked long and hard to even get these issues as they affect women on the agenda. Men will probably have to too. You don’t have to say anything about feminism or how ‘women are violent too’, in order to get men supported well. I know you say that you aren’t saying those things, but infortunately you have tied your arguments in with vto and PG, and they definitely are undermining feminism and being racist and misogynist in their attempt to get their concerns heard. You don’t have to do that.

                      I don’t know what the solution is exactly, because it’s not my business, it’s men’s business (and what has worked for women might not work for men). I encourage you to find men to talk to about this who aren’t of the MRA mind, and see what you can come up with. Men who already do anti-violence work would be a good place to start.

                    • RedLogix …
                      5 May 2014 at 9:47 pm

                      I don’t imagine men can take the same path the feminists did weka. That door was never open to us – and all attempts to batter it down since have just resulted in a whole lot of angry, resentful and hurt people (extremists on both sides of the gender divide) shouting at each other. The so called ‘gender war’ and it’s more astounding manifestations on the net are evidence enough of that.

                      I do believe however that continuing to conceive DV as mainly as a ‘male perpetrator/female victim’ gender problem, is missing a bigger and more complex picture – that partner abuse is primarily a human and relational problem, and if we moved to framing it in those terms we would all be better off. The article I linked to above reflects on some of what I mean by this.

                      I’ve said all that I want to at the moment. I’d appreciate that we have probably gotten to converge this conversation to some sense of mutual respect and understanding as close as we can at the moment.

                      Which is one small success we should celebrate.

                      Regards.

          • Stephanie Rodgers 17.1.1.3.2
            4 May 2014 at 5:41 pm

            If we as a community need to fix it, we as a community need to acknowledge the reality of it.

            It’s about having a common acceptance of the problem in order to fix it. As long as it’s just a few people trying to get heard while Ministers of the Crown buy in to myths about abuse and abusers, and while the NZ Police are willing to review cases just because a Minister said ‘hey this guy’s got lots of money so tread carefully’, New Zealand is not going to fix its violence problem.

            • Pete George 17.1.1.3.2.1
              4 May 2014 at 7:00 pm

              and while the NZ Police are willing to review cases just because a Minister said ‘hey this guy’s got lots of money so tread carefully’
              On Q@A this morning Williamson claimed not to have said anything like that.

              He also said he doesn’t believe he was the one who directed the conversation to be about Liu’s wealth.

              “The policeman said to me during the conversation, ‘you know the assault took place in the hotel this man owns’, and I think I said, ‘oh yes he owns the hotel and all the land that’s around it’. I was acknowledging that that was who he was.”

              http://tvnz.co.nz/politics-news/maurice-williamson-not-ruling-comeback-5947847

              Where does ‘hey this guy’s got lots of money so tread carefully’ come from?

              • freedom …
                4 May 2014 at 10:39 pm

                This is not a reply to you Pete, it is a reply to your pitiful disinformation attempt.

                Page 3 of the emails
                http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11247570

                He started by saying that in no way was he looking to interfere with the process, he just wanted to make sure somebody had reviewed the matter to ensure we were on solid ground as Mr Liu is investing a lot of money in New Zealand

                🙄

                • Pete George …
                  5 May 2014 at 6:44 am

                  I’ve seen that reported and I’ve seen the email copy, from DAVEY, Gary Date 29 January, but:

                  a) It is not what Stephanie appeared to quote.

                  b) The email is Davey’s words, Williamson has disputed how it was said.

                  Susan Wood: So if you’re not helping people who are rich, you’re helping rich and poor, why would you mention this man is a wealthy investor, why would you even mention that to the cop?

                  Maurice Williamson: Well I don’t actually believe it was my instigation of mentioning that, the policeman said to me during the conversation “You know the assault took place in the hotel that this man owns?”

                  And I think my response, I can’t give you the exact, but I think I said “Oh yes, he owns the hotel and all the land that’s around it”.

                  But it wasn’t in order to say “cause he’s wealthy he should be treated separately”. I was acknowledging who he was.

                  And…

                  Susan Wood: But you defended your comment to me around why you talked about the wealth that Mr Liu has.

                  Maurice Williamson: So let me get it…well because don’t think, I, no, because I don’t it was me that raised the wealth. Lt me get it…

                  Susan Wood: The words came out of your mouth…

                  Maurice Williamson: Let me nail it right now, let me nail it right now.

                  I made a mistake. I got it wrong and I’ve resigned. I don’t know how more clear I can say it. I made a mistake. I shouldn’t have made the call, you didn’t ask me about why I made the call, you just said “Why did you raise his wealth” and I said I don’t think it was me that raised it.

                  I made a mistake. I shouldn’t have made the call. I’ve resigned. Now I’ll say it as many more times as you’d like me to say it.

                  Susan Wood: Do you think you were sucked in by Mr Liu, impressed by his wealth?

                  Maurice Williamson: No. I meet lots of very wealthy people. I know lots of exceedingly wealthy people around this country and have met them at so many functions. It’s not something that either impresses or doesn’t impress me.

                  Susan Wood: How important are the Asian donors to the National Party?

                  Maurice Williamson: Well first of all I don’t anything about what people give including Mr Liu. There’s a schedule. What i like about New Zealand’s political scheme, if people do donate above a certain amount it has to be declared. It’s transparent and you from the public get to see it. I think that’s good.

                  But Susan there’s another dilemma with regards political funding. The public don’t like the idea of state funding, that is taxpayer’s funding political funding, they think they should raise their own.

                  Then political parties go out to raise their own and people think it’s cronyism, and I don’t know how you resolve that dilemma.

                  Susan Wood: Can you not see though that the claims of cronyism, especially if we’ve got Judith Collins has been in a lot of hot water over Oravida. They, people put this together and starts to look like a picture.

                  Maurice Williamson: Well, look, I would very much accept that if that was, I only dealt with people who were wealthy. Now I got, some of the commentators yesterday see “oh he shouldn’t be helping people that are wealthy like this.

                  So what I should start in my electorate office is when they come in for I help I should say “Right, net worth please?” And they say “ah twenty million”, I say right…

                  Susan Wood: That’s, we’re being silly now…

                  Maurice Williamson: No no…

                  Susan Wood: …we’re being silly now,

                  Maurice Williamson: ..you can’t do that can you,

                  Susan Wood: …no no you’ve made your point and I get that…

                  Maurice Williamson: You have to help everybody.

                  Without a recording of Williamson’s conversation with the police or a counter statement from Davey this is what we have to go on.

                  • Pascal's bookie …
                    5 May 2014 at 7:32 am

                    Pete, Stephanie wasn’t quoting, it was a paraphrase of the police officer’s statement.

                    A quote uses these marks: “…”

                    Paraaphrases look like this: ‘…’.

                    “Without a recording of Williamson’s conversation with the police or a counter statement from Davey this is what we have to go on.”

                    We have a judgement to make.

                    Firstly, the officer’s statement would have made at the time or shortly after the phone call, Williamson’s recollection is some months later.

                    Secondly, look at Williamson’s phrasing here:

                    “The policeman said to me during the conversation, ‘you know the assault took place in the hotel this man owns’, and I think I said, ‘oh yes he owns the hotel and all the land that’s around it’. I was acknowledging that that was who he was.”

                    He is describing his state of mind, allowing for the possibility he could be in fact wrong.

                    So the two versions aren’t actually equivalent in strength.

                    • Pete George …
                      5 May 2014 at 7:54 am

                      “So the two versions aren’t actually equivalent in strength.”

                      I agree, Davey’s interpretation is much closer to the conversation, but it is his paraphrase. From which Stephanie has paraphrased – and her interpretation isn’t equivalent in strength to Williamson’s.

                    • Pascal's bookie …
                      5 May 2014 at 8:19 am

                      He started by saying that in no way was he looking to interfere with the process, he just wanted to make sure somebody had reviewed the matter to ensure we were on solid ground as Mr Liu is investing a lot of money in New Zealand

                      You’ll note the officer doesn’t say, ‘I think he said’. He is describing what was said in terms of fact.

                      Stephanie’s paraphrase of it is a close one:

                      “he just wanted to make sure somebody had reviewed the matter to ensure we were on solid ground as Mr Liu is investing a lot of money in New Zealand ”

                      vs

                      ‘hey this guy’s got lots of money so tread carefully’.

                      Williamson’s version, (from some months later and that he allows may be incorrect, and that comes at a time when he is under pressure, and clearly puts him in a better light) is very different.

                      Are suggesting that the truth probably lies somewhere in between, or that it is wrong to form an opinion on which of the two versions is correct?

                      Why should we doubt the police officer’s version? What motivation would the officer have to get it so wrong?

                    • felix …
                      5 May 2014 at 8:26 am

                      “From which Stephanie has paraphrased – and her interpretation isn’t equivalent in strength to Williamson’s.”

                      So what Pete? No-one has to compare Steph’s fucking paraphrase to anything.

                      The cop that Maurice phoned says that Maurice wanted the case reviewed to make sure it was on solid ground because Liu is a bigwig investor.

                      Maurice says the cop is wrong.

                      And Maurice has resigned.

                    • Stephanie Rodgers …
                      5 May 2014 at 9:13 am

                      Thanks PB. I must confess that despite being picky about grammar in every other area, I’m terrible with remembering which quotation marks do what. But I think it’s fairly obvious that I was paraphrasing, and Pete is once again wilfully misinterpreting things to stir up trouble.

                    • Pete George …
                      5 May 2014 at 1:38 pm

                      paraphrase: a restatement of a text or passage giving the meaning in another form, as for clearness; rewording
                      – http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/paraphrase

                      “I think it’s fairly obvious that I was paraphrasing”

                      I think it’s fairly obvious you weren’t paraphrasing.

                    • freedom …
                      5 May 2014 at 2:04 pm

                      mmm words taken from an official Police email sent mere [hours?] after the phone call, or words from a ‘sacked’ Minister months after the event…which holds more water ?

                      well PB, according to PG the important bit is not ‘how many penguins were on the bus in the first place’ it is “of the penguins, how many were on the bus?”

                      I just want to know if any of them have a clue about who bought the lame llama along?

                • One Anonymous Bloke …
                  5 May 2014 at 7:00 am

                  Freedom’s point stands. How did Davey find out Liu “is investing a lot of money in New Zealand*”? It’s an odd phrase for a cop to use.

                  Williamson raised the land issue. Up until then Liu was simply “hotel owner”.

                  *not “owns the hotel”, not even “and all the land around it”.

                  • Pete George …
                    5 May 2014 at 7:15 am

                    You’d have to ask Davey. My guess is that both he and Williamson are putting their own interpretation on it.

                    Williamson’s point stands – he claims he tries to help people regardless of their wealth, and that wealth should not be a factor in deciding whether he should try and help someone who asks for help.

                    I haven’t seen any evidence Williamson tried to help Liu because “this guy’s got lots of money”.

                    • One Anonymous Bloke …
                      5 May 2014 at 7:25 am

                      No. Williamson says he told Davey about the land. Until then Liu was just the hotel owner.

                      What is there to interpret about that?

                      Oh, and Davey’s and Williamson’s statements are evidence. What you haven’t seen is definitive proof. As a fact checker you should probably contemplate this important distinction.

                    • felix …
                      5 May 2014 at 8:21 am

                      Oh god.

                      The Factsmeller Pursuivant doesn’t know what “evidence” means.

                      You couldn’t make this shit up.

        • One Anonymous Bloke 17.1.1.4
          4 May 2014 at 3:49 pm

          I agree with Stephanie. I’ll go further: the problem isn’t taken seriously because the overwhelming majority of intimate partner violence is against women. To take it seriously would be to seriously challenge male dominance and privilege.

          • vto 17.1.1.4.1
            4 May 2014 at 3:54 pm

            ” the overwhelming majority of intimate partner violence is against women.”

            any facts to support that? or just more gibberish and drool..

            • marty mars 17.1.1.4.1.1
              4 May 2014 at 4:00 pm

              Yes I agree too OAB – it is too hard for some men to even accept the obvious – sad for them and our society imo.

            • One Anonymous Bloke 17.1.1.4.1.2
              4 May 2014 at 4:01 pm

              I’m not your errand boy, and the fact that you think a “fool” would be a reliable source of data is truly foolish.

            • Tracey 17.1.1.4.1.3
              4 May 2014 at 4:02 pm

              you havent asked redlogix for his proof that a “small minority” of men commit a violent act in their lives?

              perhaps you havent read his posts yet.

              • RedLogix …
                4 May 2014 at 4:09 pm

                No that is not what I am saying at all Tracey. If you are going to participate in this debate – please read more carefully.

                • Tracey …
                  4 May 2014 at 4:27 pm

                  .. for must of us an act of violence is a rare occurrance in our lives.

                  redlogix

                  i am 47. i have not committed a single act of violence against another human being.

                  i have read your comments, all of them. i even took you at your honour that i havent asked you for a single link and accepted the integrity of your posts. notwithstanding your assertion that reading comprehension appears to you to be a uniquely female problem. i havent stooped. i havent name called.

                  i have asked you to post some practical ideas for solutions. i hope you will have time for that soon.

                  it seems it is ok for some in this thread to be philisophical and so forth about their point of view but less acepting of others.

                  for me, remving funding from a high school programme proven to give its participants increased self confidence and resulting in higher reporting of violence toward them is an issue. one i have written to my mp, mr banks, ms bennett and mr key about.

                  similar success in programmes for young men focusing on different ways for them to derive self worth and value and teaching about respect for women is another i support.

                  this thread has become a carbon copy of one after the story about young men boasting about their exploits with drunk young women.

                  in between i have continued my writing campaigns, and my work with rape crisis amongst others.

                  this has never been about man hating to me, it remains about empowering young women and trying to move barriers to young men being able to express themselves differently.

                  a minister is a leader and a yardstick for behaviour. mr williamson expressed a view still held by many. stephanie challenged it.

                  • RedLogix …
                    4 May 2014 at 4:50 pm

                    Tracey. This is a fast moving thread and not everyone is in the same place at the same time – and sometimes this causes misunderstandings even with the best intentions.

                    I think I stated my case most clearly at 13.2.3 above.

                    The data clearly shows that a small minority of men (probably about 5%) are responsible for most of the dangerous physical and sexual violence against women. They are certainly the ones responsible for most of the repeat and routine violence that the police and courts deal with.

                    It also shows that a larger group of men occasionally get caught up in situations where their level of maturity, drunkenness, stress or plain stupidity causes them to lash out. They frequently learn the lesson from it and rarely, if ever repeat the mistake.

                    And then there is a majority of men who simply never strike a woman in their lives.

                    I drew the response from data DSS linked to where he quotes:

                    concluded that 33 to 39% of New Zealand women experience physical and/or sexual violence from an intimate partner during their lifetimes, and that 4.9% of NZ women suffered moderate to severe physical violence or sexual abuse at least once in the previous 12 months

                    There are two key bits of information here.

                    One it tells us that about 5% of women in any one year at least once which is twice or more. This gives some sense of how many men are involved in repeat patterns of abuse. It is a smallish (although still concerning) minority.

                    The other piece of information is that around 35% of women (I’ve just taken the mean of the 33% and 39% numbers given for simplicity) experience one incident or more of violence in their entire lifetime. Given the way statistical distributions work that will probably be only maybe one or two incidents for many of this group. Given that zero is the ideal here this is still not a happy number, but not exactly the epidemic some would suggest.

                    And then you have to consider that the average woman has around 5-8 intimate partners in a lifetime. And it only takes one of them to be violent for her to become a victim of violence, regardless of how peaceable and decent all the other men were.

                    this has never been about man hating to me, it remains about empowering young women and trying to move barriers to young men being able to express themselves differently.

                    And there is our common ground. Absolutely.

  18. McFlock 18
    4 May 2014 at 4:27 pm

    Personally, I’m just thankful that after arguments like this (tiring as they may be) I can switch off my computer without the nagging suspicion that it might be done to me (again) sometime in my life by someone I know.

    But then I’m a dude…

    • Tracey 18.1
      4 May 2014 at 4:33 pm

      sadly for me discussions like this make me realise how much work still needs to be done, tomorrow, with fewer resources. on the upsideits less work than 30 years ago.

    • vto 18.2
      4 May 2014 at 4:45 pm

      What a freakin’ cop-out. Maybe half you lot live in some sugar-wrapped white female middle class utopia.

      I’ve been subjected to violence many times in my life – verbal, psychological, physical, it goes on … and mostly by a female …. and the scars remain

      but then I’m a dude

      • RedLogix 18.2.1
        4 May 2014 at 5:03 pm

        To her credit weka did make the point that it is a shame there is a real lack of positive places for men in our position to go to. The Men’s Rights group usually descend into relentless negativity and I’ve avoided them like the plague.

        For me the most constructive response has been to frame this as a gender neutral issue, that partner abuse is primarily a human and relational problem, and should be framed in those terms.

        Unfortunately that makes you the target of some feminists and MRA types alike.

        And I have to add that all this verbal fisticuffs on a thread about abuse is more than a tad tragic.

        • Tracey 18.2.1.1
          4 May 2014 at 5:46 pm

          ive found some of the passive aggressive stuff sad. including from you.

          I feel for anyone who has suffered from violence. I have a particular interest in sexual violence.

          I find it hard to accept physical or written violence. vto’s anger is abundantly clear to me and has been for a while. in aiming it at me it is sadly misdirected BUT if it helps his healing then all power to him.

          I dont hate men. I abhor violence and do what I can to try and change attitudes ( offline).

          • RedLogix 18.2.1.1.1
            4 May 2014 at 6:04 pm

            I do find it odd that not attacking other commenters personally has now gotten the label ‘passive aggressive’.

            I’ve consistently made my case respectfully and I’ve done my best to answer people’s responses honestly. I do not expect anyone to agree with me – just to read, think and make their own reply as they see fit.

            This is a debate, not an echo chamber of sycophants.

            • Tracey 18.2.1.1.1.1
              5 May 2014 at 9:24 am

              so in your mind thinking that only women fail at reading comprehension cos they challenge you isnt passive aggressive? and that is only one example of similar statements from you in this thread.

              if you are going to participate in this deabte please read carefully.

  19. karol 19
    4 May 2014 at 5:30 pm

    lorde on twitter:

    i refuse to stay complicit and i refuse to stay passive about men systematically subjecting me to extreme fear. pic.twitter.com/G9FLG1thUP

    this man has been stalking me, photographing me and refusing me privacy. i am scared of him. he frequents central akl pic.twitter.com/RGv39ESELV

    i understand that this comes with the territory. i do not understand why I should be complacent.

    • Stephanie Rodgers 19.1
      4 May 2014 at 5:43 pm

      Of course the immediate response has been from people (yep, many of them men) accusing Lorde of invading Runting’s privacy. You couldn’t make it up!

      • Tracey 19.1.1
        4 May 2014 at 5:50 pm

        a young, strong, successful woman…. uh oh

      • karol 19.1.2
        4 May 2014 at 5:56 pm

        Really. I’ve been at work, and only seen some of the comments today on this thread. But we’ve had these discussions before with many of the same people. The lorde tweets are another example of the way some men terrorise women with a mix of psychological and emtional threats, backed up implicitly or explicitly with threats of physical violence.

        I tried explaining earlier in response to claims (yet again – we’ve been here before) that women’s use of emotional/psychological abuse is far more horrific than any kind of physical abuse by a stronger person against a physically weaker one.

        Women also experience psychological and emotional abuse, but that combined with (most usually) male on female threats of or actual abuse is extremely terrifying….. Far more terrifying than emotional or psychological abuse on its own.

        • RedLogix 19.1.2.1
          4 May 2014 at 6:27 pm

          to claims – that women’s use of emotional/psychological abuse is far more horrific than any kind of physical abuse by a stronger person against a physically weaker one.

          Bollocks. I’ve framed this in strictly gender neutral terms. Consistently. I’ve never claimed that at all. I’ve simply stated that what is expressed in this tweet, and what you have just said, that all abuse is fundamentally emotional/psychological in nature. Regardless of what form it takes and which gender is perpetrating it.

          It’s really telling how you persist in misrepresenting what I am saying. I know you as a very capable and intelligent person, so I must assume you are doing this deliberately. Why?

          As for the tweet, so far and in the absence of more detail, we have to assume this guy’s unwelcome attentions have not extended to actual physical harm or openly verifiable threats. In that case even our Police force might well have taken action by now.

          At this point Lorde clearly feels unsafe – and that’s the terrifying thing. Not knowing how this will play out. But do you think only women experience that?

          Certainly whoever this guy in the pic is – he has the potential to be dangerous. All men do.

          But equally it is true that most are not. In reality that is.

          • weka 19.1.2.1.1
            4 May 2014 at 7:38 pm

            “I’ve simply stated that what is expressed in this tweet, and what you have just said, that all abuse is fundamentally emotional/psychological in nature. Regardless of what form it takes and which gender is perpetrating it.”

            Sorry Red, but you don’t actually get to define what domestic abuse is or how it affects people. You are quite entitled to talk about your own experiences but you don’t get to say how it is for everyone else.

          • karol 19.1.2.1.2
            5 May 2014 at 1:31 pm

            Why, RL, do I write about the issues as I do? Good question. Doesn’t that tell you something about the amount of background, etc that I bring to the issue. Maybe it’s not my arguments that are at fault. Because I have read widely about the issues, talked with a lot of women who have been victims of domestic and/or sexual violence, and understand the issues within their wider social context.

            Reviewing some of the discussion above – I also have been on the receiving end of emotional humilation, stress, abuse etc from women – and I have had a female partner in a sexual relationship take a swipe at me and torment me in various ways. The threat of physical violence from someone relatively equal to me in social and physical strength, is far less frightening than anything from the average able bodied male. And I also understand children can be victims of the superior physical and social power of some adult women.

            I think any such experience and knowledge does not negate the devastating experiences of the ways (largely) women are terrorised mostly by men.

            There are men in public and private whose behaviour, body language, etc can be very threatening. And especially so if their sense of masculinity or masculine entitlement are threatened. Such men can be extremely dangerous, verbally and physically vicious, and their actions can be devastating.

            You could say I’ve seen a little of both sides of this issue and, as a result, come to the conclusions I have stated more than once.

      • One Anonymous Bloke 19.1.3
        5 May 2014 at 7:15 am

        Stephanie, Lorde is invading Runting’s privacy. That’s the point. She’s fighting fire with fire and good on her.

        Runting appears to have people on his side. Good – thanks for identifying yourselves, guys. Way to stand up for stalkers’ rights.

  20. vto 20
    5 May 2014 at 8:09 am

    Stephanie Rodgers, without rehashing the various points thrashed around above, I still struggle with how you have pulled this entire post out of Maurice Williamson’s utterances.

    You have based your post on the assumption that the “shock” Williamson felt on learning of the police investigation was related to the fact the incident/s are of a domestic nature.

    Question: In your assuming opinion, would Williamson have felt a different “shock” if the incident/s had been of a non-domestic nature e.g. a kidnapping over a business deal, or an aggravated robbery?

    • One Anonymous Bloke 20.1
      5 May 2014 at 9:01 pm

      If Liu had been arrested and charged with kidnapping or aggravated robbery Williamson would have interfered in the investigation?

  21. vto 21
    6 May 2014 at 6:53 am

    Stephanie, do you have an answer to my question just above at 20?

    It kind of goes to the heart of your post and credibility ……….

  22. vto 22
    6 May 2014 at 7:51 pm

    zero