(Cross Posted at Capitalism Bad; Tree Pretty)
Josie Bullock was working as a probation officer in a Maori-focused anti-violence programme. During the poroporoaki, she was asked to follow tikanga and sit behind the men. She refused to do so, and was given a formal warning for unprofessional conduct. She spoke about the incident to the media and was then dismissed.
Her case has come up for another round of media commentary, because the human rights tribunal has just found that she was discriminated against, and the warning was invalid, but offered no compensation.*
The media have quite loved this case, it's got many airings on Nine to Noon. Media and legal commentators get excited as discussing this as a case of conflicting rights, and attempting to cast the rights of Maori (who are invariably men) with the rights of women (who are equally invariably white).
There are other ways we could look at what happened. We could start with the prison system, where the programme was being run. A system that imprisons Maori at a rate far higher than Pakeha. Maori make up an even higher percentage of remand prisoners than they do sentenced prisoners, which shows that Maori are refused bail at a higher rate than Pakeha.
We could look at the women who support the men inside the prison system. We could look at how their work is rendered impossible and invisible. We could look at the effect that imprisonment has on those left outside.
We could look at the ways in which society condones and supports men's power over women, and men's violence against women.
For me, that means my starting point is that I'm fighting for a world without prisons, and without abusive men.
The effect of the media's narrow focus in cases like this, is to imply that there's a scarcity of rights and that if you want your rights you may need to trample over other people's.
It's vital that those of us who want more, those who are fighting for liberation rather than rights, reject this idea. Colonialism and misogyny are interlocking systems. We won't be able to dismantle one while the other remains in tact (and won't be able to dismantle either while capitalism is sitting there).
* This was a cowardly piece of shit ruling from the human rights commission. To state that an unfair warning wasn't the reason for dismissal, but the way someone dealt with the unfair warning was, is bosses nonsense, and shows the limits of legal redress.
1 comment:
I'm dissapointed with your take on the Bullock HRC decision.
As I understand it, the dispute is between Josie Bullock's perception of sexist treatment of her in the poroporoaki protocols, versus the claim that women 'have power' in such situations in some non-overt way.
This is not a case of 'are there enough human rights' - just a case of whether rights are being fairly applied.
Ms Bullock was asked to sit at the back in the ceremony, which she refused to do, which led to her sacking (for speaking out on her treatment and lack of Corrections Dept. action). This appears overtly sexist. In the same way, Rosa Parks (African American woman) being asked to sit at the back of the bus was overtly racist.
Question is - was there some good reason for women being asked to sit at the back of the poroporoaki? And do women have their power expresssed in some other way that compensates for being asked to sit at the back?
Auckland University Prof. Margaret Mutu rather clouded the issue by claiming Ms Bullock was aksed to sit at the back because she was a visitor or guest. So would local Maori women be able to sit up front? If not, the claim of sexism stands.
I am open to different forms of equality being expressed - equalty does not have to mean equal numbers of men and women sitting on each bench, I think. But there should be good reason (clearly explained) for any variation from identical treatment for both sexes.
I don't feel your post Maia addresses these questions yet. I'ld love to see some answers (cos the mainstream media have failed to answer this that I've seen!).
Post a Comment