Colin Craig is an abuser

In between the Comey/Trump and British election news this morning was this:  Colin Craig is planning to sue Rachel MacGregor for defamation.

This is yet another way of abusing his former press secretary, who already took him to the Human Rights Commission (HRC) for harassment, resulting in a confidential agreement and a financial settlement in her favour.

MacGregor's agency has been continually stripped by Craig throughout this long saga - first when she was his employee, during the HRC mediation including saying he'd put aside $1M to "destroy" her, then when he did that terrible sauna interview and broke confidentiality,  and later with further media comments along similar lines.  Most recently, as he and other men with resources keep taking each other to court for defamation, MacGregor has been forced to be a witness and to even be cross-examined directly by Craig.  This is abuse.

Because he has resources and money, Craig is able to continue to use the legal system to abuse. Sadly this is all too common, where the court is used by abusive men to control, punish and exhaust former partners, as outlined in a shocking recent Out of the Frying Pan Into the Fire report from The Backbone Collective, including:

Women told us that even though initially they went to the Family Court after separating from an abuser seeking protection and safety they now wish they had never done so. For these women, the Family Court has become the new abuser and many have told us it is worse than the abuser. They have been unable to rebuild their lives as they are trapped in Family Court proceedings for years. During this time they continue to be exposed to violence, abuse and associated trauma and they are unable to ‘move on’ in any way.

And

Women’s harmful experience of the Family Court was made much worse because of the compounding effect of time spent in court proceedings, the increasing financial burden and the multiple health impacts. They identified that there was no logical start or end point in the proceedings; once they got involved in the Family Court they found it impossible to get out. Many said they were just ‘hanging out’ until their child turned 16 and they no longer had to be involved. 

Sound familiar?

The Out of the Frying Pan Into the Fire report refers to "litigation/legal abuse" and I am in no doubt that is what Craig is doing to MacGregor, albeit through defamation proceedings rather than in the Family Court.   No doubt there are many other stories of legal abuse through other legal avenues too, multiplying the original injustice of the abuser's actions.

MacGregor said this at the most recent court appearance:

"To this day my allegations stand concrete strong. I withdrew my complaint because I had no longer time or energy to deal with this very weird man. I withdrew the complaint because I couldn't afford to deal with him any more."

And the next day while Craig cross-examined MacGregor she made this appeal to the judge:

"I don't understand how this is an opportunity for me," MacGregor replied.
"I can't believe I'm being made to stand in front of the man that did this to me.
"I can't believe a man who treated me like this is allowed to question me over and over, it's just so stupid." 

It could not be any clearer - MacGregor DOES NOT WANT ANY OF THIS.

And yet Craig keeps going and going, continuing to put his wants ahead of anyone else's, and continuing to abuse someone who has had less power throughout all of this.  Craig's lack of self-awareness and his seemingly endless financial capacity mean he can keep going too, despite supposed barriers to stop vexatious litigation.

Twitter talk is looking at setting up a way to donate to crowdfund MacGregor's defence, and as long as she is ok with that happening I'll be making a contribution and will share the link.  Her consent to that is vital - we don't help if we do it without her approval when she has already had that stripped away so many times.

With all of this, Craig's abuse and the Family Court report, I'm reminded of the outrage around another case that went on and on, with a rapist allowed to cross-examine the woman he repeatedly raped, after which there were calls to change the law to make sure this travesty could not be repeated.

As it stands our court system seems to allow legal abuse to continue.  MacGregor's case is high profile for a variety of reasons, and is, sadly, but one example.  Our legal system continues to fail women, and those with less power, to secure justice from abusers.




I don't do comments here - you can find me easy peasy on Twitter and Facebook if you really want to let me know what you think @juliefairey

Open thread: The prime minister, the pony tail, and the disturbing sense of entitlement

Very quick post on this breaking news today, here are some links if you have no idea what this is about:

The guest post on The Daily Blog where the waitress explains that the Prime Minister has been pulling her pony tail when he visits the cafe she works at.

Herald article giving Key's apology

Stuff summary

My initial thoughts, after WTF, are:

• There appears to be no dispute about the basic facts
• You don't need to touch other people
• There is a huge power imbalance between the Prime Minister and someone working in hospitality in a junior position 
• When asked to stop he didn't
• Intention isn't magic - harassment should be determined by the person the action is done TO, not the person who is doing it to them
• Who pulls ponytails?  Seriously, why would you do that?

One way doors - will they keep us safe?

Recently as part of my local government work I've been thinking about and discussing what Auckland's "Local Alcohol Policy" might look like.  This is a new initiative, under legislation that came into effect in late 2013, which means each local council can determine a Local Alcohol Policy for their community which determines hours of operation, location, density, and additional conditions.

One of the areas of debate that came up in a workshop I was at on Friday was the usefulness, or otherwise of one way doors.  The concept is that after a certain time (say 1am) you would have to stay in the venue you are in until the cut off time for alcohol purchase (say 3am).  If you left a venue after the one way door closed, so to speak, you would not be able to get into another one.

Now on the one hand this will minimise the bar hopping that happens when people are getting drunker towards the end of the night, hopefully minimise street scuffles, and mean that when people are at their drunkest they are in a stable environment.

But what if the venue you are in when the one way door shuts isn't safe?  Or becomes unsafe?  What if you are harassed, assaulted, have your drink spiked, abused?  If you leave that is the end of your night.  If you stay you remain at risk.  Especially if the venue isn't interested in looking out for you.

Feedback most welcome in comments, thanks :)

anita sarkeesian TED talk

i thought this TED talk by anita sarkeesian was worth sharing.  she speaks about the harassment resulting from her kickstarter project to raise funds for producing videos about the treatment of female characters in the video gaming industry.  this stuff is pretty well known now, but i thought this was a good summary:



it's really sad but entirely predictable that the comments had to be turned off on the you tube page due to the same harassment that ms sarkeesian talks about in the talk.

i'm particularly looking forward to seeing the videos when they go up.  you can find her past videos here, if you haven't seen them yet.

targetting young women

here's another story of a young person who is now dead, believed to have committed suicide, as a result of internet bullying.  if you haven't heard the full story of amanda todd, it's best you hear it directly from her:



it's an incredibly sad story, and there are several things that bother me about it.

the initial problem started when someone convinced her to go topless during a chat using a webcam.  a year later, the same man threatened to send a topless photo of her to everyone she knew, unless she agreed to further demands.  he had accessed her personal information and also knew how to contact the important people in her life.  he did end up sending the photos around, and continued to stalk her even after she moved cities and schools.

what i don't understand is why the police didn't look for this man.  from the video, it appears the police were the ones to notify her that the photograph had been circulated.  it was taken when she was in 7th grade, and i don't know how old she would have been, but it clearly appears she would be underage.  that in itself is a crime.  then using the photo to coerce her into doing other sexual acts would be another crime.  i would think circulation of the photo without her consent would be a crime as well.

that initial circulation, according to her own words in the video, affected her badly, leading to anxiety.  how is it that the authorities were unable to find out who this guy was and have him brought to justice?  it doesn't make sense to me.  even if they didn't do it at the point the photo was first circulated, surely it would have been done at this point:

She changed schools and found a new group of friends in an effort to leave behind the bullies. Then the man created a Facebook profile, using her uncensored photo as his profile picture. "Cried every night, lost all my friends and respect people had for me... again... then nobody liked me," she wrote in the video.

on top of that, her reaction to the circulation of the photograph is likely to have been the result of feeling shamed.  that shame comes from the people around - she talks about people losing respect for her.  it's appalling that shaming a young person in this way would take precedence over shaming the person who did it to her.  if she had supportive people around her, particularly from her peers, the feelings of shame would have been a lot less.  clearly, all the young people around her were judging her for what she did.

and where would they have learned to do that?  from the adults in their lives, who either had the same reaction or who didn't bother to correct the reaction of their young ones.  it's possible some might not have known this shaming was going on, which suggests to me that they weren't involved enough in the lives of their young ones to know about they way their kids were mistreating others.

then there was the further incident of a group of young girls from her old school beating up this young woman, for the crime of having sex with the boyfriend of one of them.  while she chose not to press charges, i believe those kids could have been tried for the crime, with use of witness statements from the teachers who came over to see what happened, from the 50 or so witnesses from the new school, and from some of the members of the group from the old school.  ms todd need not have had to testify at all.  the fact that nothing was done, the total lack of consequences for the physical violence, empowers the bullies and add to the culture which allows bullying to keep happening.


while i'm talking about young women being bullied, let me also mention malala yousafzai, the young pakistani woman fighting for her life after being shot by a member of the taliban.  what has been done to her is appalling, and it is heartening to see the outpouring of support from around the world.  i really do wish her all the best, and hope she survives and continues to be an inspiration to young women in pakistan and around the world.

one of her "crimes" was to be seen to align herself with the very western powers who are responsible for invasion and occupation of afghanistan, and for the drone attacks in northern pakistan.  that would have been motivation enough for those who killed her.  but that they think there is any kind of religious justification for the attempted murder of a young woman, effectively still a child.  even if they believed she had committed a crime, there is no room for vigilante justice without any kind of trial.

i can only hope that the outpouring of support and prayers around the world will lead to some kind of cultural change in the places where it's most needed.

An announcement from Wellington Rape Crisis

Sad news from Wellington Rape Crisis - they have had to cut their services down by a day a week due to funding shortages.  The above YouTube video succintly explains the situation.

They have a Facebook group and a website, and you can also donate to help raise funds for Wellington Rape Crisis via Fundy here.  And for those who prefer cheque or bank deposits, the info on that is here.

On atheism

On Saturday the 17th February 2001, I realised I had no faith in women's magazines or God. 

I was at the hospital - I wasn't sick - I was visiting my best friend (she'll be known as Betsy for the purposes of this post). I was in the waiting room, and was flicking through a Cosmopolitain with Cameron Diaz on the cover.* I don't think I had ever really believed in Cosmo - but I had got pleasure from reading it. But that day, when as I turned the pages I got angrier and angrier. It wasn't just that I was too young, too fat, too poor, too un-stylish, too un-cordinated, and too apathetic to have that life – none of it was real. There wasn't a word of truth in the scores of glossy pages. 

God was less sudden, maybe more cliched. The argument against God from the existence of evil was covered in my first year philosophy class. However, that day and the ones that followed I knew something I had never really bothered to think about before - that a sort of lazy agnosticism was not enough. I was opposed to the image of God that I knew, a good and powerful God, because a good and powerful God would not have let this happen. 

******** 

I think of myself as a relaxed atheist. A while back following Britain's lead, a group have put billboards up around Wellington "There's probably no God, so Relax and enjoy life." And I don't really understand them. Why bother? Is God that big a deal? Is the idea of God stopping people relaxing and enjoying life? I have never had any bad experiences with organised religion myself (and extremely limited experiences of organised religion at all). So this idea that religion is ruining people's life has little resonance for me. 

I also think it’s important to be careful about the politics of atheism, particularly when you live on colonised land. There are atheists who are perfectly happy with focusing their critical anti-spiritual energy on those with least social power.

And even leaving aside the politics, as a historian I think the ways people have understood and made meaning from the world is incredibly important. I read this article by Douglas Adams when I was quite young, and I have always remembered it.## I don't dismiss the role of religion in the world. Religious and spiritual practices can be a way of storing knowledge, and understanding of the world. I've also studied enough history to know that resistance movements have found strength and solace in organised religion. 

On the smaller scale, I can see that some religious practices can be a useful to some people. I can see the value of meeting with people every week, of marking seasons (albiet in a topsy turvey way down this part of the world), of doing whatever people do in their religious practices (OK I actually don't understand organised religion at all, but this means that I have no problem believing that some of it is useful). 

I can even believe that sometimes spiritual stuff (lack of knowledge again breeds vagueness) is a good survival strategy for people. My aunt is an alcoholic who has found spiritual practice useful for her. I can see that some spiritual rituals can create space that some people need. I also know that the mind is a powerful thing, and beliefs can give us strengths in all sorts of ways (Dr Ben Goldacre is great for that). 

Obviously, I'm aware of the harm that organised religion can do as well: the homophobia, the misogyny and the extortion just for starters. But I don't see any of those as necessary features of organised religions - just common ones. Most of what happens in the name of religion doesn't bother me because it happens in the name of religion - most of what happen in the name of religion happens with other justifications - and it bothers me just as much. 

******** 

Someone I used to know has turned towards faith of a sort, and wrote about it here in a zine called "Radicle". This was the passage I couldn’t forget: 

Fortunately, the world is not a generally shitty place. There are amazing people, and forces for good deeper than I can make sense of, that often reward our faith. I want to defend faith, define it and make it less threatening, but the whole point that it cannot be fully explained or logically justified. It requires a leap into the unknown 

I don't know if other readers will catch the bit I object to. The bit where I stop being a relaxed atheist and start being an angry materialist atheist. 

Betsy (now out of hopsital) ran into Tracey - someone we both went to school with. After that awkward chit-chat with someone you don't actually know, Betsy turned to leave. Tracey said "can I pray for you?" Betsy said "Uh sure" to facilitate the leaving process. 

Tracey grabbed Betsy, would not go, and shouted: "Jesus Christ, please show Betsy your love and strength so she can let you into her heart and you can heal her." 

Forces for good that reward our faith. 

******* 

In form, Tracey's statement about the non-material forces in the world couldn't be more different from the article in Radicle. It's in a zine that you don't have to read if you don't want to, it's generalised and it even contains a qualifier. Tracey’s statement of faith was a full on assault, directed at an individual that targeted the ways she was already marginalised. 

But in content the statements were disturbingly familiar. Each present a view in the world that contains spiritual forces with some kind of agency. There is a huge difference with "faith is often rewarding" (which I don't disagree with - I would say there is a prima facie case that anything that large numbers of people do on a regular basis is often rewarding in some sense of the world) and "forces for good often reward our faith". In the second, the forces for good are rewarding faith - therefore they're not rewarding not faith.** Like Tracey's God, these forces are selective about what they reward. 

But to me the most grotesque idea, in both formulations, is that a God, or spiritual forces, that are so selective in their rewards are good, or loving. The Greek and Roman Gods (as far as I'm familiar with them) with their limited powers, petty feuds, and complete lack of morality - I can actually see them mapping on to the way I understand the world. I can understand appeasing a God, or spiritual forces, that reward faith, but not believing they are good. 

******** 

Another friend of mine was thinking about sending her child to Catholic school (she's not Catholic). She was talking about why she didn't mind the religion part of Catholic school: "When I went to school there was Religious Education and it terrified me. The God I learned about there was an angry smiting God, and I was scared he was going to smite me. But this is different - they're all about how God loves you and looks after you." 

And what happens when God doesn't look after him? Horrible things happen, and a belief in a loving caring God in the face of the world we live in is as scary as a smiting one.

******** 

On the macro level there are reasons why things happen - why some people get cancer and others don't, and some live in poverty and others don't. As a historian, nothing interests me more than the reasons things happen. 

But on the micro level, that's not how the world works - there is no answer to why. We can talk about all the explanations that explain the prevalence of say meningitis - poverty, exchange of fluids, age-based vulnerability. But we will always reach the limit to our understanding. A point where the only answer is luck. And at that point we will be unable to answer Why me? Why not her? Why not me? Why him?***

At this point, the point of ignorance, and randomness, some people place an interventionist God or other spiritual power. A God who heals those who believe, or forces that reward faith. This allows them to control the uncontrollable and to give meaning to that which is meaningless. 

I understand that urge, and religion is certainly not the only way people in our society try and feel like they can control the uncontrollable. When Rod Donald died a friend said that he found it really scary if Rod Donald, cyclist, Greenie could of a disease that is so often associated with 'lifestyle' then anyone could die - which is, of course, the truth. 

But what I cannot understand is embracing a belief system that creates meaning from randomness by arguing that virtue is rewarded. We live in a bitterly unfair world, to claim that there are mysterious forces, or a God that produces your luck - I cannot understand how anyone who looks at the world with their eyes open can believe that. 

******** 

I was ranting about all this at a friend of mine, and she asked if it really mattered (beware I am probably caricaturing her beliefs to make a point of my own).  People say they believe in moral spiritual forces, but surely no-one actually believes that. Betsy’s chronic disease would be cured if she accepted Jesus into her heart. Why bother engaging with people who say things that imply that they do?

But Tracey was not the first person to harass my friend Betsy in that way, and has not been the last.  I’m not going to be harassed by people who believe that my body is a problem that God needs to solve.  I don’t have to deal with more polite people who aren’t rude enough to say that my body is a problem that God can solve, but obviously believe it.   The people who are most likely to suffer at the pointy end of belief – are people who are already facing massive amounts of unluck and calling bullshit is a way of standing in solidarity with them.

But I also think it’s more respectful to respond to people who say things that I believe are damaging and wrong with “I think that’s damaging and wrong” than with “I’m going to ignore that because I don’t believe you mean what you say.”  To me – the second response is patronising.

I don’t assume that religious people hold the sorts of spiritual beliefs I have criticised in this post.  I don’t assume that because someone has some sort of faith they give moral meaning to the luck and unluck that people experience.  But when people say things that imply that some sort of spiritual force could intervene to improve people’s lives if they behaved or believed in a certain way – I think there is a political value in challenging and unpacking the implications of those statements.

*********

This is from a major news service’s**** coverage of the shootings in Aurora during the batman screenings:

[name redacted] told NBC television that when the carnage began she shouted at her friend: "We've got to get out of here." But when they started to move she saw people fall around her as the gunman began silently making his way up the aisle, shooting anyone who was trying to escape ahead of him.

"He shot people trying to go out the exits," she said.

At that moment, [name redacted] stared her own imminent death in the face. The shooter came towards her, saying nothing. The barrel of the gun was pointing directly at her face. "I was just a deer in headlights. I didn't know what to do."

A shot rang out, but it was aimed at the person sitting right behind her. "I have no idea why he didn't shoot me," [named redacted] said.

Later, when she was safe,  [named redacted]  told her mother: "Mom, God saved me. God still loves me."

Imagine if this were true.  Imagine if there was a God who had some power in that movie theatre, and he saved the lives of the people he loved. 

I was hesitant about commenting on this. The woman was speaking immediately after surviving horrific trauma. I have thought terrible things, under far less pressure.  This woman was dealing with her situation as best she could.  I don't want to draw attention to her as an individual who made those statements.

Religious beliefs that connect luck with morality are so normalised in our society that even their most horrific expressions stand without comment.

********

Turns out I am not a relaxed atheist, just a protected one. When people who win awards, reality shows, or sporting events thank God, I just find it amusing, because I don’t think winning awards, reality shows or sporting events really matters. And in my everyday life I very rarely run into people thanking God, or attributing their luck to any spiritual force that is rewarding their faith. But I don't think you can call yourself a relaxed athiest if you're OK as long as religion stays well away from spiritual explanations that involve virtue.

I am in fact, passionate about materialism,***** and think there's huge power and strength in understanding what we can about the world. I think it's even more important to accept the randomness of the universe; not to project meaning onto the unknown, but to acknowledge the role that luck and unluck play in our lives. 

********

I was taking a 10 year old for a walk with his dog. 

“Are you religious?” Later he would ask me who I voted for, he was obviously thinking about things a lot. 

“I’m an athiest.” 

“So’s Mum. Mum and Grandma had big argument over religion. Mum asked Grandma what she believed and Grandma said when she’d been little she had been really poor and had no school bag and everyone teased her. So she prayed for a new school bag. And then the next day someone from her church gave her one, so God listened to her prayers. And then Mum said that what about all the other children? why doesn’t God answer their prayers?” 

“Yeah, that’s what I would have said” 

Then we throw another stick for the dog. Apparently that’s all the questions for today. 

******* 

* There were two magazines with Cameron Diaz on the cover on the ward that month. Both had the same picture, but her top was a different colour. This was long before features exposing photoshop were common-place and seeing those two photos side by side with a different colour was disconcerting in a world that didn't feel particularly safe or stable. 

** I've said it before, and I'll probably say it again, understanding the difference between the active and the passive voice is a fundamental prerequistite for useful political thinking.

*** Somewhere around here Schroedinger's Cat and Quantum Physics comes in. 

**** I have not included the name of the person being quoted, or the site the quote is from (although google will verify my sources).   As I said, my point is not about her, but that such views are seen as normal.

***** I can't read that sentence without hearing 'passionate about materialism' in David Mitchell's voice - but it is true.

## I had a quote from the article here.  I've removed it as someone pointed out (and I agree) that the I used it was racist in exactly the kind of way I was trying to problematise and avoid.

This isn't what we're paid for

I went to pick my father up at hospital yesterday, after some exploratory surgery to investigate possible cancer. He was glad the horror of having his body poked, prodded and cut was over for now at least and told me about everything he could remember.

It was a difficult day, frightening for both of us, and triggering, because hospital based, of the recent death of my mother.

But extraordinarily, what Dad told me pushed me back into angry feminist mode, even on a day when I'd needed to cry by the sea after I left him there in the morning.

Dad described all the tests he'd had before they came to give him general anasthetic. He talked about how nervous he'd been. And then he told me what the surgeon (a white man in his fifties or sixties) had said to him, as he chatted with Dad before the needle was inserted.

"Just look over there, Mr **, at all those pretty nurses. That will take your mind off it," Surgeon smiled.

I've never seen my father sexualise or objectify women to "put us in our place." Ever. He said he replied, with remarkable composure given the situation, "Oh, I don't think that will do it."

Now there's the creepiness of someone holding institutional power offering up his professional colleagues for judgment on their (entirely unrelated to job performance) attractiveness. There's the nudge nudge, wink wink nature of attempted male bonding over objectifying women, which I imagine with some male patients is taken up with gusto. And there's the fact that every nurse I saw there was younger than I am. So my father - nearly seventy - was being encouraged to ogle women in their twenties and thirties.

Dad told me this, knowing I would react. It took both our minds off how frightened we were. But I'd happily give up that respite from worrying about my Dad's health to know the nurses in that workplace were free from sexual harassment, every day of their working lives, just as we all should be.

Street wankers

Well happy new year everyone. Doesn't really feel like the end of the holidays to me yet even though I'm back at work, because I'm about to go dance in the sun at Kaikoura Roots. After which no doubt I'll be beyond compare as a wage slave. Really.

But I digress.






Fantastic series of posts at Stop Street Harassment which I'm only just now catching up with, and which complements nicely the fabulous work of the Wellington Young Feminist Collective in bringing Hollaback to Wellie.

Stop Street Harassment is:

a resource center where visitors can access lists of statistics, articles, films, and campaigns around street harassment as well as ideas for action to stop street harassment in their community.

Stop Street Harassment also provides people with a place to share their stories. International Anti-Street Harassment Week is one of Stop Street Harassment’s campaigns.

So the posts I enjoyed - post one details international successes in stopping street harassment, from new laws in Chile and Saudi Arabia to UN awards for Egyptian groups combating street harassment.

Post two lists new or expanded campaigns world-wide, including of course the extraordinary phenomena for 2011 that was Slutwalk.

Post three shares new creative initiatives focussing on street harassment - films, cartoons, posters, placards, and maybe my fave, the Catcaller Form from The Riot.

Post four are street harassment stories from people who stood up to harassers. Inspiring and fabulous, and brings me to my last feminist act for 2011.

Walking home after eating ripe strawberries in the spa in the local aquatic centre (read on, that's not the feminist act :-)), I notice a man with both hands down his pants sitting at my local bus stop, masturbating and leering at me as I walk past.

I sneer - which believe me, is quite fearsome - walk on for twenty metres, call the police, then follow him down the road when he starts to move so that when the police arrive, they can take a statement from me and deal with him. I did have to discuss the law with the police officer, but all in all, while not the loveliest way to wind down the year, far better than letting the guy get away with taking over my neighbourhood.

Let's hope 2012 has more lying in spa pools with strawberries, and less wankers in my street.

A ramble about unacceptable behaviour in activisty groups

Trigger warnings for rape, sexual abuse, violence, exploitation of power:

The other day Stef and I were having a chat about the Omar Hamed stuff that has come up here and elsewhere lately.  Neither of us know Omar at all, but sadly the theme was familiar; sexist injustice and exploitation, hidden within activist groups supposedly overwhelming in their right-on expressions of gender equality and general comradely behaviour of The Highest Order.

We both knew of examples the other was unaware of, even in groups we had both been active in around the same time. I don't know about Stef, but I kept at least one story back, one I just still cannot share with people who know the rapist even vaguely.  So often these stories feel like they are not our own to share because they happened to someone else, and we want to protect them, not the abuser.  It's difficult to know what to do; the worry that by telling what the areshole did you will open the victim up to shame and recrimination.

Which is where leadership comes in.  One of the responsibilities of leadership is dealing with the internal Hard Stuff too.

I've noticed it too many times now.  When concerns are raised about a prominent member, a "Good Guy", who is behaving in a predatory sexist manner towards others in the group, the shutters come down on the faces of the political leaders and the problem becomes not the unacceptable behaviour, but the fact that people are labelling that behaviour as unacceptable and challenging it.

The person with the problem, the person who acts unacceptably, might not be an out-front leader, they might be someone who delivers lots of leaflets, or has a great hoarding spot, or is one of the few in paid employment for the group.  Whatever role they fill there seems to be some protection afforded, some reason to not rock the boat in case they decide to jump out and take their contribution with them. 

But what about all the contributions withdrawn by others because of that person and the fact that their behaviour is tacitly accepted by the leadership?  What about the women who don't go to SlutWalk in case the man who raped them is there?  What about the men who just never come back to another planning meeting?  What about the discussions had over a few beers at the pub that a whole heap of the activists just never seem to participate in?

It terrifies me that when I start talking to people about this stuff more and more comes out.  Stories with statements like:

• "Oh yeah, someone told me to watch out for him because I'm an attractive young blonde and apparently he has a bit of history."
• "I always make sure I don't put any young women in a car alone with that guy, just in case."
• "He said if I gave him a blow-job he'd back my friend in the election, but I figured he was just joking and I laughed it off.  But he never did write anything nice about my mate."
• "The only reason he stopped following me around campus was because someone threatened to break his legs."
• "Well he's a bit of a groper, but some young gay men like that, so I guess it's ok."
• "Best to billet men with them."
• "So then I said 'it's probably best I walk home with you both,' and it was alright."
• "Everyone thinks he's so sweet and adorable but I shake whenever I see him and apparently I'm overreacting."
• "There was this time in the carpark where I had to lock my car doors and drive away."

At heart I believe that rejection of the actual problem, the bad behaviour, is sexist.  It is unjust.  It is making a judgement call that the accused is entitled to protection from the consequences of their actions.  It enables them to continue as they were, maybe get worse, and not have to think critically about what they are doing and why.  Saying nothing, doing nothing, changes nothing.

Yes someone accused has rights; in the criminal justice system these include a presumption of innocence.  I support that.  In a legal system we do need to come from a position, most of the time, of proving guilt.  Being found guilty in the courts has massive repurcussions for the individual in the dock; not least often a serious loss of liberty.  Our society needs to be really really certain before enforcing that.*

But in activist groups we don't need to have mock trials and legal representation at the table.  The first thing we need to do is believe and trust women.  The second thing we need to do is put in place structures to address these types of concerns when they are raised.  With mechanisms already in place when something comes up there is already a clear path to follow in that immediate period when as a leader you are flailing around going "oh shit, I really wish that I hadn't heard that."  It changes the instant response from Make It Go Away *puts heads in hands* into This Needs To Go To There First *starts doing something*.

We basically rely on gossip to keep people safe in our activist groups.  That's not good enough.   When someone's behaviour is unacceptable it needs to be raised with them.  The earlier it is done the more likely it is that change will happen and harm will be lessened.  No one should have to confront an abuser alone.  Anyone should be able to approach others for support, and receive it, particularly amongst a group's leaders.

My experience to date has been male political leaders (not exclusively, but mostly) putting concerns raised by women (not exclusively, but mostly) to one side.   A sexist mathematical calculation which continues to see women's concerns about a man < the man's contribution to the cause.

This is the personal mainfestation of a broader political equation: Women's issues < so-called "mainstream" issues.  Abortion law reform, low rates of prosecutions and conviction for rape, pay equity, women's political representation.  They're all so-called "side issues."  We're told to roll our dainty sleeves up, put on the kettle, and help the fellas fix the Big Problems first, then we'll all pitch in on that other stuff.  The Cause is more important than the issues of any members within The Cause, or something.

It's bullshit. 

The very fact that we've been having a public conversation about these matters shows a commitment to change.  The bravery of those raising these issues (as they multitask and work on heaps of other great stuff too) gives me heart.  This is change we can make, we must make, and we are starting to make.  Let's keep going.


*  Actually I'm pretty dubious about how our criminal justice system approaches sentencing, but that's a bit off topic.

The Fear of Fear

Photo of train tracks with a several switches or points.
This may be a metaphorical representation of the complexity
of the psychological journey we must make, or it may just be
a random pic I found on Google image search.

When my partner and I were looking at houses about eighteen months to two years ago, we seriously considered one where the most practical transport route into town was via what is now our Second Closest Train Station (SCTS). The only way to the platform at SCTS is via a long underground tunnel under the roads on either side. I remember, when we were weighing up pros and cons of the house, how I'd feel about walking through that in the evenings was a significant factor against. In the end, that wasn't why we didn't buy it, but it still made me angry.

And then, around the time we moved into our current house, a woman reported being sexually assaulted in the (much shorter and lighter) subway to the platform of Closest Train Station (CTS). Around a week later she retracted her complaint. I remember thinking that I would feel so much safer if I could just believe she was a lying slut that made it all up for attention, when in fact all kinds of possibilities kept racing through my mind. Maybe the police treated her like crap. Maybe she was threatened. Maybe her family felt it reflected badly on them and put pressure on her to keep it quiet. Maybe she made up an assault by a stranger to cover up and assault by someone known to her. Maybe she just wanted to stop talking about it.

Fast forward a few months, and we're living about 25 minutes walk from CTS. The bus is much closer and it works well for commuting, but during summer I often prefer the train; the walk is pretty, a train pass is cheaper and when the train works it's a lot quicker. But I have a choice of a train or a bus pass (there's no suitable combined option) and the single bus fare home is expensive (and this sometimes applies year round anyway as trains sometimes run later than the buses). Walking home from the station is no problem if I go straight home from work, but I often don't. Later in the evening I have a couple of options:

The first is to take the train to CTS and then switch to a bus which takes me almost to my house. It costs a little extra but not too much. In theory the bus connects with the train. To be fair, in practice it usually does, but if it doesn't there's the risk that I'll have to (a) wait an hour (that's assuming it's not the last bus, which it often is) (b) walk - and it's really pushing the boundaries of what I can walk whilst carrying a bag or (c) call a taxi, which aside from the expense, can often take a while to arrive. Meanwhile, there's a large open space where the bus stop is which I've already experienced verbal sexual harassment just walking across - waiting there for any period of time does not sound like an enjoyable experience.

The second is to get off the train at SCTS and walk home. Most of the walk is along a reasonably busy road with lots of open space. It's not a problem. But for the first section I have two options. The first - and slightly shorter - one is through a semi industrial area. At night it tends to be most abandoned with the odd passing car. There are effectively no houses. The other is through a largely residential area, where you can usually expect a few people to be wandering around. It's an area of mostly state housing and has a strong reputation for being a neighbourhood with significant gang connections. It's the latter that I feel safer in; I always feel safer when there are people around. But I walk through the deserted semi industrial area, the one that makes my heart race and I'm clutching my hands against my bag strap as I keep thinking I see people jump out of shadows. It's an utterly horrible experience, even though it only lasts five minutes.

And I've only just realised why I make that choice. It's because, if I were attacked (and I don't think that's particularly likely) I believe I would get far more criticism for taking the long way round through a gang neighbourhood at night.

The point of this post is not my public transport woes (though a rant post complete with phone camera photos of Annoying Loud Music Playing Woman is certainly tempting). This is just a subsection of equivalent stories I could tell - I haven't gone into details of how creepy my workplace feels at night, the spate of (attempted) assaults in my city or that a bunch of schoolkids at the bus stop last night seriously beat up another - I only saw the end of it, as someone intervened, but an acquaintance who'd witnessed it was pale and literally shaking. 

It's that most of my fears are not of assault. They're fears of the fear of assault, of how unpleasant being scared is, and they're fears of what would happen to me if I were to be assaulted. It's that knowing - through feminist reading or bitter experience - that the streets at dark are not the dangerous place, is not enough for women to be able to fucking get home from the train station at 10pm without it being a fear inducing drama. And that's not just because  - even if its incidence is disproportionately cited - stranger rape does happen. It's because we do face street harassment all the fucking time. It's because we've been trained to be afraid - and most worryingly we've been trained to be afraid of people from particular racial and socioeconomic groups. And it's that - if anything does happen - we know we're going to be faced with shit and have every decision we made scrutinised.

I wish being able to relate my actual fears to real possibilities, and know why my fears are problematic, was enough. It's not.

Guest Post: Hollaback Wellington launches this week!

A guest post from Josephine at the Wellington Young Feminists’ Collective, cross posted on the WYFC blog. Many thanks to WYFC for submitting this.

 The WYFC is launching Hollaback Wellington this week and we’re really excited!

Hollaback was started by a group of people in New York as a website and mobile application to raise awareness of the street harassment many women and LGBTQ folk were experiencing on a daily basis. The idea was so simple but effective that soon Hollaback chapters were being launched across the world, and now we are bringing it to Wellington.

The idea behind Hollaback is that people who experience street harassment need a voice. Hollaback’s aim is to do this through harnessing mobile and web technology, creating a global network of blogs and a mobile apps relating to different countries and cities. All chapters are unique but linked by a common goal - to reduce the amount of street harassment that happens in their city.

Harassment in the home, workplace or at school is widely considered unacceptable but it seems that in our public spaces all bets are off. Street harassment is a form of gender and sexuality based violence that a huge number of people all over the world experience everyday.

Street harassment includes touching, groping, lewd comments, following, flashing, assault and other violent acts. The logistics of reporting these events involves users filling out a form on the Hollaback website, which is then posted by a site administrator to a map of Wellington, showing a red marker where the incident occurred and outlining the story in full. We’re primarily targeting women and LGBTQ people, but anyone who experiences street harassment is welcome to post.

We’re setting this up in Wellington because we felt the need for a service of this kind. My own motivation came from some awful experiences I had at university, where a guy from my maths class decided to start following me around campus, and when he saw me out in public, following me on the street. Not knowing this guy’s name, I couldn’t report him to anyone. What I really wanted to do was tell someone about how his behaviour made me feel: unsafe, alone and disgusting. Hopefully Hollaback Wellington can be some sort of outlet for people who have similar experiences to mine - we want them to know that this is not something you have to brush off or that you have to deal with by yourself.

As we continue to get set up we will promote other organisations that deal with gender based violence, such as HELP Sexual Abuse and Wellington Rape Crisis. We’re also interested in holding self defence workshops, bystander intervention workshops and working with the Council, Students Associations, and engaging with our lawmakers on these issues.

Longer term, we want contribute to making this kind of behaviour socially unacceptable. One of the ways to achieve this is by encouraging people who witness street harassment to speak up. Hollaback International’s most recent fundraising campaign - “I’ve got your back” - raised money so that we can redevelop our blog and mobile app platform to include stories from bystanders who have intervened in street harassment situations. They will be mapped with green marker, and each story will have a button similar to the Facebook ‘Like’ button so that readers can show their solidarity.

Please share this site with your family and friends in Wellington, and contact Hollaback International if you are interested in launching one in your town or city. We’re also having a launch gig at Happy on the 13th, so if you’re in town you should come along.

Loves,

Josephine.

"technology can't be used in this way"

i've been a fan of principal youth court judge andrew becroft for quite some time. it's mostly because he has a lot of sensible things to say about youth justice. and also because of his support for the now-scrapped te hurihunga youth justice unit in hamilton.

so this judgement is exactly what i'd expect from him:

A jilted lover has made legal history by being jailed for posting a photograph of his ex-girlfriend naked for millions of Facebook users to see....

[Joshua] Ashby posted the photo in an "irresponsible drunken jealous rage" after the breakup of their five-month relationship, the judge said.

It is believed to be the first time someone has been sentenced for a crime committed using social media under the seldom-used morality and decency section of the Crimes Act.

Ashby's parents, Michael and Lisa, hope the jail term will deter others from the "dark side" of Facebook.

The Island Bay painter was jailed for four months after pleading guilty to a charge of distributing indecent matter and six others of threatening to kill, wilful damage, theft of the woman's clothes, and assault.

He had included in text messages to her on July 23: "I'm going to kill you" and "Dead bitch". He then posted a photograph he had of her naked in front of a mirror to her Facebook page. Initially, 218 of her friends had access to it, but Ashby then made it publicly available and changed her password. Her friends saw the photo and texted her to tell her.

Judge Becroft said he was adapting an old print law for the internet age. "Technology can't be used in this way," he warned. "You would do incalculable damage to someone's reputation."

i'm really glad that the act of posting the picture was taken seriously, with a charge being laid and the offender being convicted. given the media reaction last year to lara bingle having her photograph sent around the traps by an ex-boyfriend, well this is quite a refreshing change. unlike in that instance, the judge puts the blame squarely where it belongs. no excuses, no victim-blaming, just a straight-out statement of how wrong this behaviour is.

no doubt the fact that he indulged in other abusive behaviours was a factor in the judgement. one would hope that any case of a nude photo being distributed without consent would be treated just as seriously.

On the inconvenience of periods and pregnancy

Cross posted

The New Zealand Herald contacted me yesterday, wanting a comment on this invitation being sent out by Te Papa (the New Zealand national museum).

Te Papa storeroom tours

A behind the scenes tour of Te Papa's collection stores and collection management systems
Te Papa, 10:30am- 2:30pm, Friday 5th November 2010
Places are limited to 7 people

A chance for Local regional museums to visit various Te Papa store rooms and meet the collection managers of:
- The Taonga Māori collection - Lisa Ward, Moana Parata, Noel Osborne
- Photography and new media - Anita Hogan
- Works on paper - Tony Mackle
- Textiles - Tania Walters

Conditions of the tour:
* No photographs are to be taken of the taonga, however some images can be made available.
* There is to be no kai (food or drink) taken into the collection rooms.
* Wahine who are either hapü (pregnant) or mate wähine (menstruating) are welcome to visit at another time that is convenient for them.
* We start our visits with karakia and invite our manuhiri to participate.

Who is it for?
- This tour is for representatives from small museums, art galleries, heritage organisations, the arts and cultural sector or iwi organisations.

(I've edited the layout and fonts and so on, to fit on the screen, and the emphasis is mine.)

The Herald reporter suggested that I might have something to say about the practice of excluding menstruating and pregnant women being sexist and archaic. However, I didn't. I sent back these three quotes.

It's fair enough to respect cultural protocols, but maybe Te Papa could say that, instead of their mealy-mouthed request for pregnant and menstruating women to come back at a time that "is convenient for them." I'm perfectly able to function when I've got my period or when I'm pregnant. It's far more inconvenient to have to make special arrangements to come back at another time.

I don't understand why a secular institution, funded by public money in a secular state, is imposing religious and cultural values on people. It's fair enough for people to engage in their own cultural practices where those practices don't harm others, but the state shouldn't be imposing those practices on other people.

It's up to Maori to work out if and how and when cultural practices should change for Maori, within the traditional freedoms of liberal democracies. If it is important to Maori people that pregnant and menstruating women aren't included in the tour, then maybe the tour shouldn't take place at all.

The story appeared in the New Zealand Herald this morning:

Anger at Te Papa ban on pregnant women

It's interesting to see which of my quotes was used in the story, and how it was used.

Stuff also has a story about the invitation. They contacted Boganette for comment.

Pregnant women warned off Te Papa tour

A reminder: we are individuals at The Hand Mirror, not a monolith. The views above are very much MY opinions, not views of The Hand Mirror.

On being believed

The similarity between a current Shortland St storyline and the Clayton Weatherston case didn't occur to me until I read the LadyNews post on the weekend. Steph's right of course, there has been far too much focus on Sophie Elliot's appearance, as if it was at all relevant to the harassment, stalking and murder she suffered.

I guess I missed the stark resemblance because I was too wrapped up in the astonishing sight of Sophie McKay (the Shortie character being stalked by her ex-boyfriend and tutor) being believed.

Every character that I've seen Sophie interact with about her issues with Ash (the tutor) has told her to trust her instincts that there is something wrong, and has supported her to protect herself.  Which is great.  I hope that it continues this way as the storyline plays out.

And I wish it was how this stuff plays out in real life. I'm really glad Shortie is portraying this in such an aspirational way; making it seem like it is the default position to believe a woman when she says she feels unsafe. Because sadly that isn't what happens for many.

My own experiences (two of them, neither involving tutors I should say) were that it took months for anyone to take my worries seriously. It didn't help that I started to think I was the one in the wrong, not the guys, and that figures of authority in one case completely ignored something really obviously happening right in front of them.

I started to wonder where the lines were. If I didn't kick up a fuss about this thing on this occasion then was I tacitly consenting to it happening again? I was so frightened and confused and felt guilty, as if it was my fault, and it would never have occurred to me to be as assertive about it as Sophie McKay has been to date. Perhaps if people around me had supported me I might have, instead of questioning myself constantly.

My observation of people under stress, and some reading on the topic, has led me to agree with the conclusion that when stressed we tend to revert back to flight, fight or fright (aka freeze).  I have seen it in my work;  when faced with a disciplinary meeting with no prep or support a worker will usually either freeze and not say anything or absent themselves, often by taking sick leave for stress-related troubles.  Fight is a response I've seen more rarely in my work, and I think that's partly a gendered thing, as I've mainly dealt with women workers.  Certainly my own response, when faced with the stress of harassment, was to freeze most of the time, flee most of the rest of the time, and fight very rarely (and usually with such a bad outcome that I didn't try it again for a long time, if at all). 

In the end in each of the two cases I've experienced myself it was the support of others that shifted things for me.  In the first instance I was unable to get support from the person who would have been my natural ally until they started doing to her what they had been doing to me for months.  Suddenly she saw the light and things started to change.  Part of the reason I'd thought I must be in the wrong was her lack of support in the past.

In the second situation a group of friends suddenly changed their view from "oh look, it's cute that he has a crush on her, it's so never going to happen, but it's so cute" to "ok this shit is getting freaky and she's terrified, how did I not notice this before".  Once they realised, the behaviour stopped very quickly, as the person in question got told in no uncertain terms, by people he respected, to leave me alone entirely.

Good on Shortie St for showing how it should be. I hope life imitates art very soon indeed.