keeping up the momentum

we had our national day of action against rape culture.  it was awesome to see so many people out on the streets, raising their voices on this issue.  and it's good to see that there may be some changes to the law as a result of these protests.

but as time goes on & the pressure goes off, it's likely that there will be less change than we hoped for.  this is why we're holding a public meeting in hamilton tomorrow night, to have a discussion on what needs to change & what needs to be improved.  hopefully we can talk about meaningful ways to change both our culture and our institutions.  and hopefully we can come up with some action points to take forward.

it's election year next year, and most parties will be working on policies to take forward into the election.  it's important to make sure that issues around justice & funding in relation to sexual violence & abuse remain at the forefront of policy debates.  if there is a time to push for meaningful change, it's now.

for those of you who are already active in politics & campaigning, please don't let the issues slide.  raise it with your party caucus reps, your party's leadership & those who you know will be active in your party's campaign team.  the amount of discussion and debate that arose out of the "roast busters" incident shows that many, many people care about this stuff, and many people want things to change.

for those who aren't so deeply involved in politics, small acts make a difference.  letters to MPs, letters to the editor, questions at public meetings (& particularly at meet-the-candidates events in the campaign) will help to keep focus on the issues.  it's all basic stuff, the building blocks of any political campaign.

if you need motivation & you haven't read them all, then read through the testimonies of survivors in their own words (huge trigger warning - it's tough reading).  but i think so many of us have our own experiences to draw on.  the problem isn't that we don't care enough, it's that there are so many things to care about, so many fronts that we're fighting on, that we run out of energy.  or sometimes the issues are too triggering, the wounds still too fresh for us to be able to take on activism as well.  i understand that.

for those who do have the energy, and particularly if you're in the waikato, i hope you'll come to the meeting tomorrow night.  i'm a little nervous about it - i hope that the discussion is constructive.  but also pretty excited to have speakers like louise nicholas, dr neville robertson & catherine o'kelly.  here are the full details:

A few words about rape

Content warning:  This is about rape and the injustice of it, and stupid stupid rape culture that means many keep asking the wrong questions, and may be triggering for some readers. 

Most people seem to be having the wrong conversation about rape.  Too often the discussion ends up being about the person who was raped; what they wore, what they were drinking, their sexual history, where they were, their relationship to the person who raped them, so on and so forth.  As if my examining the minutiae of the lives of those who have been raped we can somehow find out how to stop rape.

It's the wrong end of the stick, and I know this will be 101 for many readers and bloggers here, but sadly it's still the only end of the stick for many in the media, figures of authority, radio hosts, and politicians. 

The problem does not lie with the people who get raped.  It never did, never has, never will.  You can examine them as much as you like, but you will never find a solution because you are asking the wrong question to the wrong people.

What we need to be talking about, again and again, is WHY PEOPLE RAPE.  Why do some people want to have sex with someone who isn't consenting?  What's going on in their head that that is ok and even desirable?  Is their decision-making impaired by alcohol or another substance?  Are they callous and narcissistic?  Do they actively want to have power over another to make up for some hole inside themselves?  Do they think that is how you show someone you love them, because that's what they've seen as a child? 

We must ask, and answer, these questions not to excuse the rapist, to minimise the rape, but to work out what the hell is going on that there are some people who think sex without consent is a good thing, something they need in their lives, or how we produced people who care so little about other human beings that consent is irrelevant to them. 

We can do this, we just need to decide, resource it and see it through.  There are a lot of NGOs and agencies doing incredibly valuable work at low levels, but it needs the omph of state support in my opinion.  Not likely currently, but absolutely essential to seriously tackle this really crucial issue that just gets put away in the One Day When We've Solved Everything Else file far too often.

Rape culture enables us to put it away, to forget about it, to put it back to the bottom of the pile time and again.  Rape culture allows us to Do Something about rape by actually doing very little at all.  Rape culture has to go. 

I'm keen to raise my kids to Not Rape.  But I don't have all the tools I need to do that because there isn't a focus on this side of the equation.  I'm teaching them to have agency over their bodies, to respect other people, to stop being so damn bossy (that one serves many purposes), and I hope I'm helping them to develop empathy.   I worry this isn't enough.  I do fear that my children might get raped one day, but ultimately that wouldn't be their fault, as terrible as it would be, and is thus largely out of their control, and mine as their parent.  What I can hopefully assist with is teaching them to respect others' bodies and choices, actively seek consent, and develop empathy for those around them.  That I can take some responsibility for. 

Rape is a horrible word, describing a hideous thing.  But we don't make it go away by not saying it, by not talking about how and why it happens and who does it.

It is rapists who are responsible for rape

Trigger warnings for rape, substance abuse and addiction, general enragingness.  Also excessive use of CAPS LOCK.


I heard a little bit about Lindsay Mitchell's latest Truth column on Twitter on Friday, but no one could provide me an online copy.  Today someone rectified that in comments here (thank you, kind of).


Now Lindsay and I disagree on many things.  We often have those agreements online, through the medium of blogging, but normally we manage to be remarkably civil for two people who disagree so fundamentally.


I really struggle though finding civil responses to this incredibly harmful rape apologist Truth column from Mitchell.  


1.  It is not necessary to put rapes in scare-quotes, especially when you are already using alleged in front anyway.  Quote marks are for quotes, and here are some examples:  Calling rape a "sex 'accident'" is so incredibly awful that it should be erased from the english language and never ever used again except to point out how awful it is.  Ditto for "retrospectively unwanted sex".  


2.  If a friend came to me and told me she'd been raped while she was drunk (or a male friend for that matter) then my first response would not be to have questions, but to offer support and love and whatever else they needed BECAUSE THEY ARE MY FRIEND.  


3.  The legal standard may be guilt beyond reasonable doubt, but when I'm not a judge or a jury member I am quite at liberty to make up my own mind to believe the person who was raped, which is what I intend to do, especially if they are my friend, but also as a point of principle to somehow slightly re-balance the constant disbelief that rape victims face at every turn.  Hurtful, harmful, unnecessary disbelief that Lindsay is perpetuating with this column.


4.  No one asks for rape.  It is rapists who are responsible for rape.  Being incapable of giving consent means you have NOT GIVEN CONSENT.  Sex without consent is rape.  It's really quite simply.  I thought former ACT candidate's were generally big on people having free will and giving informed consent and all that jazz?  


5.  "I’d talk it out and insist she mentally take some responsibility for what happened, learn from it and move on. And I’d forgive her, so she could do the same. "  This HORRIFIES ME.  If anyone has had that conversation with anyone I know who has been raped you better not ever tell me because I will explode with anger.  All over you in a hideous mess of brain matter and internal organ-ness.  I am not entirely sure I am exaggerating.


6.  Suggesting that the best response is to totally sweep any such incidents away from any examination whatsoever is just so irresponsible that I cannot believe Truth even published it.

I'm going to stop at 6 points.  I have to because otherwise I could write and delete and write and delete and write all night and still not be any further on with saying what I want to than just saying this:

It is rapists who are responsible for rape; minimising, excusing or denying this is unacceptable to me.

Sexual violence in the Justice system: Abject Fail

The Law Commission proposals for alternative trial processes for sexual violence sit in a context of the abject failure of the justice system.

While communities and survivors in particular have increasingly asked for Police assistance to stop rape and sexual violence - with reporting of sexual offences up 45% since 2004 - the justice sector's ability to respond has not stepped up.

Police estimate, despite reporting increases, that they still only get to hear about 10% of sexual violence in New Zealand. According to the Ministry of Justice Crime and Safety Survey, sexual offences are the fifth most common kind of criminal offence.

The abjectness of our justice system's failure sits not only in how commonplace sexual violence is, or how under-reported. There is also the fact that the conviction rate for reported sexual offences against adults is 13%. Which means there is about a one in a hundred chance that a particular act of sexual violence will be successfully prosecuted by our justice system.

Again with the abjectness not being done. The most damning evidence that our justice system gives survivors of sexual violence a poor deal, in my opinion, comes straight out of the mouths of the justice system. In 2009, research asked New Zealand Police and Crown Prosecutors:

‘If you had a close friend or family member who was a victim of sexual violence, would you recommend they go through the criminal justice system?’

41% of Police said no, or they didn't know, if they would recommend going through our criminal justice system. Those who were unsure talked about being happier to recommend if the sexual violence corresponded to rape myths (stranger, violent etc).

I wouldn’t put myself through this and certainly would let a friend or family know how degrading it is and that they will be revictimised and the chances of a guilty verdict are very, very low. (Police)

And Crown Prosecutors, those responsible for ensuring sexual violence does not go unpunished? 61% of them said no, or they didn't know, if they would recommend going through our criminal justice system. As with the Police, those who were unsure stressed they would be more likely to recommend for stranger rapes.

In my view the process for complainants in sexual violence cases is brutal, every aspect of the complainant’s character and conduct is questioned and exposed, and the likely outcome is not guilty. (Crown prosecutor)

Our current justice system does not work for sexual violence. Not even those deeply embedded within the justice system are happy to recommend it for their loved ones. Sexual violence conviction rates are lower than for any other kind of crime. We must improve this situation if we are serious about sexual violence being unacceptable.

The Law Commission's recommendations on alternative trial processes have the potential to improve this situation significantly.

We have until Friday 27 April to let the Law Commission know what we need from our justice system for survivors of sexual violence. You can tell them here, or email at alttrials@lawcom.govt.nz, or post your submission to:

The Law Commission, ATTN: Alternative Trial Processes Consultation, PO Box 2590, Wellington 6140, New Zealand.

Louise Nicholas supports the Law Commission recommendations:

Let's have Justice for Sexual Violence

Once upon a time, not so very long ago, a government set up a Taskforce for Action on Sexual Violence. They had been shaken by public outrage at not guilty verdicts for rape of Louise Nicholas by former police officers Clint Rickards, Brad Shipton and Bob Schollum. Shipton and Schollum were already in prison for shockingly similar acts of gang rape, and the case showed - partly because of Louise Nicholas' bravery in taking a public stand - what a mess the justice system was making of sexual violence cases.

This Taskforce reported findings based on two years research and information sharing, to a different government, who called this report "the most comprehensive roadmap on sexual violence prevention and services that any New Zealand government has ever received."

And in this report was a whole bunch of stuff about how to make the criminal justice system fairer for survivors of sexual violence, including looking at a variety of alternative trial processes. These alternatives are now up for discussion, with public submissions not only welcome but absolutely critical, at the Law Commission.

Over the next week, here at the Hand Mirror, there will be posts with a variety of information about sexual violence and the criminal justice system - all geared to help people who are interested write submissions to the Law Commission on how our systems might work more fairly, and cause less re-victimisation for survivors.

We have until Friday 27 April to let the Law Commission know what we need from our justice system for survivors of sexual violence. You can tell them here, or email at alttrials@lawcom.govt.nz, or post your submission to:

The Law Commission, ATTN: Alternative Trial Processes Consultation, PO Box 2590, Wellington 6140, New Zealand.

Louise Nicholas is better placed than most to describe why we might need alternatives to our current justice response to sexual violence:

SlutWalking in Auckland in June

Here are my photos from yesterday, in Auckland. I'm not sure if people would like to be named or not (except Cathy) so I haven't shared any of the names I do know - if you want to out yourself in comments feel free, but please don't out others.

It was a really good march, and I was heartened to see that so much of the anger and determination is still there from an International Women's Day march against rape that I went on about four years ago.  That event was a chance to express the rage many felt at the acquittal of some policemen accused of rape earlier in the week. 

This was not an easy event for many to attend.  Protests of this nature never are.  I want to acknowledge that  - some of those who came were probably uncomfortable and it was a great struggle to even make it along.  Others couldn't come for the same reasons. 

Ultimately whether or not you attended a SlutWalk yesterday doesn't matter.  What matters is that you reject rape, reject the myth that those raped are to blame for the assault, and challenge rape culture when you come across it and have the spoons to do so. 

Here are my photos:

Gathering at the start at QE2 Square, great speeches, especially Chloe King who was incredible.

Some awesome people with awesome placards, listening to the awesome speakers at QE2.

One of many great, colourful placards

Walking up Queen St.  "Sexual Assault is the Rapist's Fault" was one of the chants.

More fab placards, at the rear of the march.

The front of the march, as we got further up Queen St.  What you can't see is all the photographers & TV cameras swarming around behind me and up on the pavement getting shots.

Auckland Councillor Cathy Casey took her dogs for a SlutWalk.

I think this is my favourite shot of my ones; feminists and allies in action!

True dat.

SlutWalk sharing

ETA: Updated this morning (Monday) to include more links, in the sections with purple headings :-)  I'm also slotting in new blog stuff as I stumble across it.

A post giving people a chance to chat about their experiences at SlutWalk in Akl and Wellington, and maybe share links to photos. media coverage etc too :-)

Big ups to the Auckland organisers, really good job.  I hope to put some of my pics up in a separate post later Sunday night.

Linky love for SlutWalk:
Gigantic SlutWalk Auckland 2011 Post at Because Feminism.
Photos of Auckland SlutWalk, 25 June at Auckland Photo Blog
SlutWalk - Twitter Messages of Love! at La Vita e Bella

Slutwalk Aotearoa in Wellington, a review at g.blog
Wellington Aotearoa Slutwalk 25/6/11 at Sexshitandrocknroll's Blog (where I found some of these links)
A very productie day / Slutwalk Aotearoa Wellington 2011 at Good Gravey!

New linky love for Slutwalk:
Walking at The Lady Garden
Me (in a sea of people) at La Vita e Bella
Rape: A Local Problem by Gong Foam as a Facebook note
SlutWalking in Auckland in June at The Hand Mirror
Slutwalkin' at Crevice Canyon 
A slutwalk addendum at Good Gravey! 
Slutwalk - Perspectives and Apologies as an Organiser at La Vita e Bella (one of the Wellington organisers responds to issues raised in the comments to this post)
Slutwalk, Wellington at Life is a feminist issue


Media coverage:
SlutWalks brave cold to get message across - TVNZ
Slutwalkers 'tired of bodies being a battleground' - 3News
Hundreds of Kiwis protest in SlutWalk - Stuff (v good video on this link I thought)

Hundreds support SlutWalks in Ack, Wgtn - Yahoo News
Slutwalk draws 500 marchers - Dominion Post 
Slutwalk comes to New Zealand (photo album) - NZ Herald

New media coverage:

I understand The Listener this week will be featuring a major story on SlutWalk.  Nothing about it that I could see on their website just yet.
Hundreds turn out for Auckland's Slutwalk - Te Waha Nui (includes video)
Radio NZ bulletin on the Slutwalks including JoHubris' comments

Photo Albums 

Auckland SlutWalk shots on Imgur by an unknown photographer
Nikki's Auckland photos on flickr
Auckland pics on Facebook:  album by Jia Luo, album by Richard Symons Makeup + Photography, album by Nykie Grove-Eades, album by Showgirls,
Wellington shots on Facebook: album by Mike Bryant, album by Andrea Skews, album by the Greens, album by Jason Mann Photography.

Let me know if you find anything I've missed, has been a frantic weekend so this is pretty patchy!

SlutWalk stuff

Saturday June 25th is SlutWalk day for Aotearoa New Zealand.

 I'll be at the Auckland SlutWalk, weather willing*, which is 2pm at QEII Square (bottom of Queen St), marching up Queen St. Some of the Auckland-based THMers, and friends, will be meeting outside the Muffin Break by the Queen St entrance to the Downtown Westfield at 1.45pm.  More info on the Auckland SlutWalk can be found here.  I have heard that Louise Nicholas may be speaking?

Other THMers may be at the Wellington SlutWalk, which is at 2pm at Waitangi Park, marching to Civic Square.  Wellington Young Feminists Collective are meeting up beforehand at Te Aro Park at 1pm, and they are so onto it they even have a Facebook event for it :-)  More info on the Wellington SlutWalk can be found here.

The SlutWalk concept, and how it has been realised in different parts of the world, have been imperfect imho, however I still feel that it's worthwhile, and I'll be marching tomorrow (I hope) to walk with others who unreservedly put the blame for rape where it belongs; on rapists.  I look forward to a future where discussions of rape centre around the behaviour of rapists, not survivors. 

There have been many many great blog posts in the build-up to SlutWalk and I think it would be totally awesome if people had the energy to add their favourites in comments, but if not that's ok too.  I'm looking forward to the reports and pics after the marches. 

I heartily recommend the amazing & wonderful Deborah's opinion piece on Stuff today about how SlutWalk came about and why it matters.  Here's part of the end:

It's time for a change. It's time to realise that the one thing in common in all rapes is the presence of a rapist, someone who couldn't be bothered to get consent. It's time to understand that the only thing that signifies consent to sex is the participants' willing and enthusiastic consent. Not what people are wearing, not what people have had to drink, not what people have done in the past. What is required is the presence of that wonderful word "Yes!" For both women and men.

I'm SlutWalking for all these reasons. I want to reclaim the word, I want to enable women to celebrate their sexuality, I want an end to victim-blaming.

DON'T READ THE COMMENTS on Stuff.  I haven't, after being fore-warned.

From what I am hearing from a wide variety of women intending to attend there will be all sorts of different outfits on display.  I'll be in Mummy Couture I think.

Good luck everyone, and thanks to the organisers for your hard work.


*  Sadly I have a low threshold for acceptable weather tomorrow as I'll have Snuffly and Wriggly with me.  

Safer Communities Together

Years ago, I heard a story.

A young, and new, constable was posted to Rotorua in the 1980s (yeah it's not a happy story). I don't know why he became a police officer, or what he wanted to do, or anything about him or his life. What I do know is his fellow police officerswould collect the names of single mothers - vulnerable women who would be home during the day alone - knock on the door in uniform and demand sex.

The young constable didn't like this, but he couldn't stop it, or maybe he just didn't know how to stop it, or wasn't prepared to do what it would have taken to stop it. But he couldn't be around these men, knowing what they did, and having to be an accomplice. So he left the police force.

Rape and abuse of power wasn't just something Rotorua police officers did in their off time? It was something that required structural support, and structural cover up. It required a widespread mentality that women didn't matter, and other police officers had a right to abuse them.

Dave Archibald was still operating under the 'bros before hoes' mentality when he used his position as police officer to get access to information in the hope it'd help his rapists mates.

Now he is in charge of training new police officers.

I'm reasonably clear that I don't think the police can be reformed, that I think the problems that come from the sort of power that they have are unavoidable, that their job, and the job of the criminal (in)justice system is to maintain the status quo not create safer communities together (see here).

But for those of you who have some faith in the police, who think the culture of rape and abuse is extinguisable, how is that going to happen? Maybe you think our young constable would have made a good constable, that he could have made a difference, but that difference he could have made was the reaosn he couldn't stay in the police force. Those who stayed, are those who could stomach, or turn a blind eye, to what was going on, they're the people who are training new police officers and choosing who gets promoted. How can you believe in reform?

How many times do we have to say it? NO ONE ASKS FOR RAPE

Garth George does it again. (Warning, possible triggering around rape and sexual assault in his column)

His key points appear to be:

• Andy Haden should not have been a Rugby World Cup Ambassador in the first place because he is a straight-talker rather than "trained in the art of dissimulation and practised at long-winded circumlocution by which they spend hours saying nothing at all."
• Haden shouldn't have made the racist statement he did earlier in the year because it was "patently wrong" and, as a good Kiwi Bloke (TM), he should have used a local racial slur rather than the imported "darkies".
• Haden's comments about women asking for rape were "fair enough", but shouldn't have been said publicly.
• Robin Brooke's alleged behaviour was bad "since at the time he was newly married."

Then there are these really really awful statements from George, which I'm putting after the fold because they may be triggering for some:

"Surely it is perfectly logical to acknowledge that if female groupies attach themselves to sportsmen, drink with them and take them home, chances are they'll end up screwed.

...The perennial publicity given to the off-field behaviour of testosterone-fuelled rugby - and particularly Australian rugby league - players in recent years should surely have warned any sports-loving young woman to stay well away unless she is prepared to go all the way.

And, once again, one has to wonder why it has taken well over a decade for this complaint to be made and why the media should make such a meal of it.

One has to wonder, too, at the naivete of rape victim advocate Louise Nicholas who said that rugby players needed to be prepared for groupies and walk away from situations that could go awry.

Surely, in this day and age of prolific casual sex, she has to be joking. Don't women have as much, if not more, responsibility for keeping themselves away from unwelcome male attention?

So when it comes to rape the onus is actually on women to avoid it. And to encourage men to think about their own behaviour is "naive." Robin Brooke's main sin, from what's been alleged to date, is cheating on his new wife.

You won't be surprised to discover that George has managed to get through this whole column without using the word rape, except when using it to describe Louise Nicholas' role for Rape Prevention Education.

I shake my head in disbelief.

If it's not politic for Andy Haden to say these things in public, as George himself seems to be agreeing with, why is it ok for Garth to put them in his Herald column, indeed expand on them and imho state them in an even worse manner?

Where do you start with someone who is so hard-wired to blame women for rape?

survivors of sexual abuse summit

i've had a pretty gruelling day today. i went up to auckland for the survivors of sexual abuse summit. i was expecting it to be difficult, and yet felt i had to be there. i got there late, at 10am, just when morning tea had started. by 10.15 i had already shed a few tears while talking to one of the women at the auckland sexual abuse help stand, which made me wonder how i was going to manage the rest of the day. but though i was on the verge of tears much of the day, and maybe shed just a couple listening to the stories, it wasn't quite so bad.

what a great range of speakers! starting off with louise nicholas, and this was the first time i'd heard her speak. and some wonderful maori women sharing their experiences as well. in the afternoon, there was aron gilmore of dancing with the stars fame, talking in some detail about his experience of abuse. he was an excellent speaker, and brought a lot of humour (some quite black) to the topic.

i asked him how he went about telling his parents about the abuse (some years after it had stopped and after he had started counselling), and how they reacted. to me, this is one of the most difficult aspects of dealing with sexual abuse, especially if the abuser is a close family member. if the abuser is still alive and still in the position to abuse, then perhaps the decision to tell is more clear cut, in terms of looking after the safety of others.

but if the abuser is no longer alive, then there are no justice issues. and telling is a traumatic experience, mostly because the teller knows that what they are telling is going to cause grief and distress to the people listening. it's hard enough dealing with the effects of the abuse, and usually hard enough to tell a counsellor or someone outside of the situation. but telling your own parents or your own children, well that is really a scary prospect, depending on the relationship the abuser might have had with you.

telling close family members doesn't always lead to support or healing. some of the stories i heard today included enstrangement and anger from family members directed at the person who was abused. which tends to keep victims silent, and keep the issue more hidden than it should be.

so i honour the women and men who stepped up to tell their stories. who suffered abuse, survived, and are now out in the community helping others. what precious work you do, and what wonderful inspiration you are.

only one negative: other than the maori women, i was the only ethnic minority woman present, that i could see. there didn't appear to be any pasifika, asian or african women present. i know that the publicity wasn't lacking, as the information went out via the aotearoa ethnic network, which is how i heard about it, and probably through other networks as well. but women from these communities didn't turn up, and i think that needs to be explored further. because they do need to be brought into the conversation, but i'm not sure how exactly. given how difficult a day it was for me, i can hardly recommend it to others who aren't ready or able to sit through that kind of thing.

Louise Nicholas: My Story - Maia's Hand Mirror Reflections

This is a repost - I originally posted it on the 14th October 2007.

*********

Louise Nicholas: My Story is a very good book. I feel I should start by making that clear, because I would have read it - I would have recommended it - even if it hadn't been very good. The book's strength comes because Louise Nicholas has something to say, and her voice, her experiences, her reality, comes through in every paragraph.

The book is written in alternating sections Louise Nicholas's and Phil Kitchin. Louise Nicholas tells her story, from going up in Murapara to hearing John Dewar's guilty verdict. Phil Kitchin provides all sorts of information about the trials and investigations, but he also tells us how his story intersected with Louise Nicholas's from an anonymous tip-off in the 1990s.

I'm going to concentrate on Louise Nicholas's chapters in this review, but Phil Kitchin's material adds hugely to the book. The two voices only work together because Phil Kitichin doesn't just stick to the facts, but allows himself to come through as a person. We learn about his reactions, we get snippets of his life, and are right there when he gets fired. Because both stories are personal they mesh well together.

Both voices contain a lot of information, that you didn't already know. I learnt a lot about what had happened, and I'd followed the cases obsessively. The book really demonstrates how poor the reporting on the police trials was. Some of those flaws have been apparent for a while - there are people out there who believe Louise Nicholas's flatmate gave evidence. But some flaws I hadn't realised. For the first time I was angry at the jury - the book lays out the crown's case in a way the media of the time didn't* - and the jury had more than enough evidence to convict, on some of the charges.

But the strongest part of the book isn't the information, for all everyone should know it - it's Louise Nicholas's voice which comes through powerfully and beautifully. More than that, her voice comes through because she knows what's important. It is so easy for non-fiction narratives to be lost in a sea of irrelevant statements. Louise Nicholas, and possibly her editors, have done a very good job of selecting the telling details, and leaving out the rest.

I'll give just one example of this sort of selection. I've had a lot of respect for Ross Nicholas for a long time, although I don't think it was based on anything, but a vague optimism. In this book he comes through as a person, and rather an awesome one. When she told him about Phil Kitchin's evidence about John Dewar she writes of him responding:

'I told you, didn't I?' he crowed. 'I said to you lots of times I didn't trust him that bastard! That there was something screwy about him. But would you believe me? Nooooo! Eh missus? So there you go! Once again, I'm right and you were wrong, eh missus?'

That one exchange not just convinced me that I wasn't wrong about Ross Nicholas, but also conveyed so much about his character and their relationship.

The book works best when it's focused on the main narrative, but because we don't live our lives in compartments this story tells us about much more than sexual violence.

The realities of reproduction: pregnancy, breast-feeding and caring for small children, are a constant thread. For those who don't know, or don't think, about the work involved in raising kids, this book is very telling.

We learn, as Grace Paley would say, not just about her blood, but about her money - what provincial working class people need to do to continue existing on this world. People get laid off, they get fired. The dangers of working life in her story outraged, but did not surprise, me.

Her story has depth, because she includes the things that matter and talks about them in her own voice.

I do have two criticisms of the book, one is that I think the design does the book a disservice. While I think Random House did a fantastic job of the editing (according to Louise Nicholas it was Random House that choose how the two parts of the story would intersect), the design crew were not so skilled. Phil's and Louise's sections are in different fonts, which is understandable, but both fonts are hard to read (and I'm not normally someone who notices that sort of thing). More importantly the cover makes it look like a standard biography of a celebrity, rather than a well-written book with something to say.

The other is some of Phil Kitichin's sections. Evelyn Waugh criticised Jessica Mitford's The American Way of Death by saying that she lacked a clearly stated attitude towards death (to which she replied "Do tell him I'm against it"). I feel that Phil Kitichin lacks a clearly stated attitude towards consent. Particularly when talking about raping with a police baton, he falls back on the idea that the act itself is depraved, and therefore no-one would consent to it. I think that is a very weak position to be arguing from. Indeed it enables people like Kathryn Ryan to ask Louise Nicholas, 'other women consented to these acts, can you see why that makes people doubt your story?'. Phil Kitchin also discusses Louise Nicholas's sexual history completely unnecessarily.

I as able to over-look Phil Kitchin's statements, because the book is so good. But it is not an easy book to read.

The hardest section to read is her description of what happened at Corbett St. For four vivid pages she takes us inside her head while those men raped her. It's the worst, but it's certainly not the only; I decided I needed to steel myself for the worst parts so I read forward from the trial, before I read the earlier chapters. But the book is full of horrific details, as other women tell their stories. Rape is horrific and they don't step back from that.

Not everyone will be able to read this book. Although I think it should be compulsory for anyone who doesn't believe her, and any man who doesn't know that all the sex he's had is consensual. But I think if you can you should try and read it. Because for all it's sad and horrifying its not a book about despair, it's a book about hope.

There's hope in her survival.

There's the very personal hope of a family that believed her and stood by her. Her eldest daughter was 13 when Phil Kitichin's story came out, the same age Louise Nicholas had been when she was raped by police in Murapara. And her reaction is particularly powerful

There's hope because she was believed by so many people.

There's hope because by standing up she has given strength to other women. An 86 year old woman told Louise Nicholas that she had been raped when she was 16, and never told anyone, but after she heard Louise Nicholas's story she told her family for the first time.

There's hope because she has already made a difference, and if we stand together we can do so much more.

Please read this book. Please take it as a call to arms.

* There were suppression orders in place which stopped the media reporting a lot of the most important evidence for the crown. But what is so frustrating is that they didn't let people know that the holes existed. They could have made it clear that they were painting a fragmented picture and they didn't.

Maia's Hand Mirror Reflections: Introduction

As you may have noticed I don't post that often. There are lots of reasons for this, but it does mean that I'm not contributing much over here on the hand mirror. To make up for this I'm starting a new series: "Maia's Hand Mirror Reflections" which will be reposts of things that I wrote over on my blog before the hand mirror started. After the post I wrote yesterday, I'm going to start with some posts about police rape trials.

I wrote this post on the 12th of October 2006.

***********

Tomorrow I will have been writing at this blog for a year. I think the hardest thing has been the search for something to write about - it means you have to listen. I used to kind of shut it all out, and I think it's been a bad year to be listening, particularly as a New Zealand feminist blogger (maybe any year is a bad year). I wrote this, when I was waiting for a verdict when Clint Rickards, Bob Schollum and Brad Shipton were standing trial for raping Louise Nicholas: police rape trial:

The pattern last two days for me has been dominated by making sure I was listening to the radio every hour, on the hour. National radio marks the hour with their six pips, and I listen to the news, I'm waiting for a verdict. I'm not alone; there are other women listening as intently as me. During a meeting today I popped into someone else's office to listen to the one o'clock news - another woman came in "is there a verdict?"

We're reading entrails. I got a text message saying "Jury came out to ask judge as question - good sign i reckon'. I agree and the question they asked was a good one. Each hour the jury's deliberations stretch on (they've spent 8 hours yesterday, and 12 hours today) I wonder if it's a good sign. "At least someone believes Louise Nicholas" I say, "I hope they stay staunch" whoever I happen to be talking to at the moment replies.

We listen and wait and worry because we believe Louise Nicholas.

I'd been keeping half an ear on the trial of a New Plymouth doctor charged with multiple counts of sexual assault on many different women. I hadn't been listening to the news every hour on the hour, but I had been waiting since the jury went out on Tuesday. I'd been anticipating that he'd be acquitted. He wasn't; he was found guilty on most of the charges. Presumably there were so many complainants that the weight of their evidence gave the jury conviction beyond reasonable doubt.*

It's not that I particularly want him to go to jail. I'm a big Jessica Mitford fan - Cruel and Usual Punishment will turn anyone off jail. The only person I want to go to jail is Clint Rickards. I don't think jail helps the situation, indeed the believe the only protection we have is speaking the name of rapists loud and clear.

What I want for women who are raped, is that people say to them 'we believe you and what happened to you was not ok'. In our society the only way to do that is to get a guilty verdict. While I'm sure those not guilty verdicts are hard for the jurors to come to, while I know that some people on those juries believed Louise Nicholas, and the other women, whose names are suppressed. I know that others didn't believe them. I want to live in a where everyone agrees that getting drunk isn't consent and sharing a bed isn't consent, and you don't automatically consent to boyfriends, police officers, and doctors.

Every conviction is a relief - not just for me but all the women I know and love, and the many more I don't know. It's a little bit of hope that our bodies belong to us.

*It's lucky for certain police officers that any trials that they stand seem to be treated as individual incidents, and the fact that there was a pattern of behaviour is kept from the jury.

Minor news

The paper had sat on our kitchen table for a few days. The Dominion Post is given away for free at campus and one of my flatmates brings it back to do the crossword. The headline caught my eye:

I never raped anyone, former officer tells the jury

I read stories like that, but I take a breath first:

A former Rotorua police officer denied raping a 17-year-old Rotorua teen in her flat 21 years ago but could not rule out a brief sexual encounter, a court has been told. Iosefa Fiaola told a jury in Tauranga District Court yesterday that he did not know the woman who alleged she was raped in her flat in 1989.

Then today I searched Stuff for 'Rotorua' 'Police' 'Rape'. There were lots of hits.

The jury had come back on Thursday. They had found him not guilty.

Another woman had gone to the police about being raped by Iosefa Fiaola, this article strongly implies this was the reason he left the police force.

The article I read was on page 5 or 6. When Rotorua cops stand trial for rape in the 1980s, it's barely news anymore.

I keep looking for the words, but I have so many jumbled things I could say to that. And I've said them all before, more than once.

How many people knew? Obviously lots of women knew, women who were raped, women who structured their lives around avoiding cops, women who had been warned. But none of them had the power to stop these rapists. How many police officers knew? How many lawyers? How about other men who could have stopped it? Or just men who could draw a line and say "I'm against raping women, even when my buddies do it?"

It's too big for me to comprehend, even now, even after thinking about it for years.

So I'm just going to say, again, that I believe this woman.

Name Suppression

So Whale Oil is the first blogger to be charged with breaking name suppression in relation to a rape case.

It's strange. It's almost 4 years ago that this post broke name suppression orders around the police rape cases. I didn't write that post to get attention, or to make a point. I wrote it because I was furious - I was politically furious. Throughout the trial Louise Nicholas's past had been brought up, under cross examination and in every paper while the men who raped her were being protected.

I still don't know what I think of name suppression, or of breaking it. I think, in balance, the breaking of name suppression that went on around the cop rape case was useful. I think it disrupted the image of poor hard done by cops and it was a way of getting a really public message of support and solidarity out there, not just to Louise Nicholas and the other women who had been raped by Clint Rickard, Bob Schollum and Brad Shipton, but to the many women for whom the attacks on Louise Nicholas felt very personal.

As an action, it wasn't without risks, some of which were not mine to take. Most importantly, the trial that took place the year after that (when they were again acquitted) could have been thrown out.

I don't really have simple thoughts about name suppression, or short answers. I certainly don't oppose name suppression on principle, except insofar as I oppose everything about the criminal justice system.

But breaking name suppression just to do it? Without any political point? As part of some kind of guessing game (as Whale Oil apparently did)? That's juvenile.

One of the people Whale Oil is supposed to have named is the Olympian who raped his wife. He has name suppression not because he is famous, but because she has automatic name suppression.

As a feminist one of the things I'm fighting for is a world where victims of sexual violence don't need automatic name suppression. Where there is no shame in being abused, just being abusive. But we are so far from being there.

If the rumours I have heard about the identity of the comedian who sexually assaulted a girl (who also has name suppression because of the identity of his victim) and the identity of the Olympian are true then there are political points to be made about both of them. There are points to be made about the nature of rape culture, and the way women's lives are prioritised. But the only way to make those points is to name the abuser, and therefore out the person they abused. Political arguments about rape must never be made if you have to tread on victims of abuse to do so.

In the end it's not surprising that it is a right-wing anti-feminist man who has been the first blogger to be charged for breaking name suppression relating to sexual abuse cases. For me, the fight was never about name suppresison, it was always about rape.

Sexual assault victim speaks out on name suppression

In a meta moment, the Herald reports on an interview in the NZ Women's Weekly:

The teenage girl indecently assaulted by a prominent musician has broken her silence, saying that even police tried to dissuade her from pursuing charges against him.

In an exclusive interview in this week's New Zealand Woman's Weekly, Brittany Cancian, 17, demanded that the prominent entertainer be named. She said the case had left her wanting justice.

Brittany, of Lower Hutt, revealed that police advised her that the musician was offering $200 to charity and told her that she should have "some compassion" towards him. "My dad went berserk about that."

Brittany told the Woman's Weekly that she had been treated like a "dog". "I felt like crap.

"I'm angry that he got name suppression. I think if he was a normal person, it would be different. I want people to know his name and I feel like the court has taken his side."

Click through for the rest of the article.

Will be interesting to see if the police do comment on the allegations that they basically tried to make this go away. Probably though they will just take Judy Callingham's advice about just saying no. I'm sure many many police do good work in the area of sexual violence, especially since the Louise Nicholas cases, however on the face of it looks like they are not there yet.

On this topic, readers may be interested in this post at Kiwiblog (and actually you need to read the comments to get the full tenor of it, they are nowhere near as bad as usual), in which David Farrar talks about his experience participating in a panel discussion on name suppression and the internet, and inadvertently lets the cat out of the bag. It's a good example of just how tricky this stuff is in the days of Web 2.0.

Quick hit: Sexual Violence Taskforce report out

From today's Herald:

The justice system could be tilted to make it easier to convict sex offenders if the Government adopts proposals in a controversial taskforce report.

The report from the two-year taskforce for action on sexual violence, issued yesterday, would reverse the usual rules of evidence for sex cases only - disclosing previous offences and complaints against an accused offender, directing juries that they may draw an "adverse inference" if an accused opts to stay silent, and directing them that "beyond reasonable doubt" does not mean "no doubt" that the accused is guilty.

Other proposals include full funding for rape crisis agencies and an entitlement to two years of counselling for all sex abuse victims - a stark contrast to new Accident Compensation Corporation rules restricting counselling to victims with diagnosed mental illnesses and for a maximum of 16 weeks at a time.

Click through for the rest.

Sorry I don't have time to write more about this (and won't until next week, so any other THMers feel free to pick this up!), but do check it out - there are some real fish hooks mentioned in the article and they are only proposals at this stage (which is probably good, I'm personally uncomfortable about the one about negative inference from silence on the part of the accused).

A post about irrelevancies

Further to Deborah's Ground Rules Post of Awesomeness months back, let's just clarify a few things. This has been rattling around in my head for some time now, particularly in the wake of what happened to the women who raised concerns about Richard Worth.

In order to be the victim of harassment is it not necessary that you be:

• a virgin, or at the least virginal in conduct
• married
• a parent
• uninterested in, or disliking of, sexual activities
• a woman
• heterosexual
• demurely dressed
• brunette
• not considered attractive by the mainstream media (apologies for the double negative)
• wearing little or no makeup

I'm sure readers can add suggestions of their own.

I really really hate this stupid idea that harassment, rape, abuse, etc can only happen to someone who fits some ridiculous stereotype of innocence straight out of fairytales from Ye Olden Tymes. All that should matter is that the attention and/or actions are unwanted. Full stop.

Why I wouldn't vote for Russel Norman if I lived in Mt Albert

I decided in 2007 that I would not vote for for the Greens while Russel Norman is on the list.* With Russel Norman running in Mt Albert, I wanted to outline why.

In March 2007, the jury in the second rape trial of Clint Rickards, Bob Schollum, and Brad Shipton came back with a not guilty verdict. I had been following the case - well obsessively is probably an understatement (I wrote about it a lot). Less than a week after the verdict, Russel Norman wrote a post about the cases on frogblog. The whole post is trivialising, and completely misses the important issues involved (power, consent and abuse). But what angered me most is his claim that Louise Nicholas had consensual sex with Clint Rickards:

I don’t see that being involved in consenting group sex is any reason for him not to go back to work. And people use sex aids so using a police baton in a consenting situation doesn’t seem grounds for refusing him his job back.

Now I understand that Russel Norman would have faced consequences if he'd said "Clint Rickards is a rapist." Although, for the record, Clint Rickards is a rapist. But just because you can't call Clint Rickards a rapist, is no reason to describe sex as consensual, when the women involved have stated repeatedly and clearly that it was not.

Most people that I've talked to about this acknowledge that the post was stupid, and wrong, but many don't understand why I care so much. I've been told "wow it doesn't take much to lose your vote" when I explain my decision not to vote for the Greens. Partly I think this is because rape is not seen as political, I don't think the people who saw this is a small thing would have taken the same position of Russel Norman had, say, criticised striking workers.

The kindest interpretation of what Russel Norman said was that he believes that the police rape cases were a relatively trivial matter, so the implications of his words don't matter. The alternative is that he believes that Louise Nicholas is lying when she says that Clint Rickards raped her. Either show that he doesn't take rape seriously as a political issue.

I do take rape seriously as a political issue, and I don't think that's a trivial difference.

I have reposted my original response to Russel Norman's post below the cut. It was written less than a week after the verdict. You can see that at the time I was overwhelmed by the trial. But two years later I stand by everything I said. I stand by the weight and importance I gave, and continue to give, to his dismissal of women's experiences.

I don't expect much of the Green party. I appreciate Sue Bradford's private members' bills, and Keith Locke's questions in parliament. I make it a habit not to read or listen to anything Sue Kedgeley says and not engage with anything the Greens say about food, fiscal policy and saving the world through consumption taxes, because it's not worth it. I ignore them, they don't say anything too horrible, and it works for both of us.

Not today. Today Russel Norman wrote about the police rape trials on frogblog.

I don’t see that being involved in consenting group sex is any reason for him not to go back to work. And people use sex aids so using a police baton in a consenting situation doesn’t seem grounds for refusing him his job back.

What the fuck is anyone who has ever heard of the existance of feminist analysis doing suggesting that these incidents involved consenting sex?

I understand that most people have more to lose than I do, and would face consequences if they said "Clint Rickards is a rapist piece of scum" at every opportunity. But just because the jury believed that the case hadn't been proved beyond reasonable doubt, that doesn't make the sex consenting. Two women have come forward and said that they were raped by these three men. Anyone who states categorically that Clint Rickards' had consenting group sex is saying that they don't believe those women.

Usually that's what you'd expect, but all the women in Russel's caucus are feminist and one has talked bravely and publicly of her experience of being raped. I would have expected him to pay attention to these women, and their experiences, and not choose the words of rapists over the words of rape survivors.

Russel Norman did acknowledge that there might have been a power imbalance in an addendum, but says:

My original comment above about group sex was in response to my perception that a lot of the reaction to the case was of a conservative moralistic nature about group sex rather than about an abuse of power

I've paid obsessive attention to all the media, and any reading which saw a lot of the reaction to the case to be conservative and moralistic is ridiculously inaccurate. I can't imagine what sort of priorities you have if your response to everything that's happened is to worry that people are condemning group sex.

Those paragraphs are offensive, the rest of the article just focuses on side-issues. Russel Norman believes that the two issues that come out of this case are:
1. Should the jury have been told that Schollum and Shipton were previously convicted of rape?
2. Should Rickards be allowed to be Auckland police chief?

Here are some of the questions that I think come out of this trial:
How many women's testimony equals one man's in the NZ legal system?
Is Brad Shipton the most vile man in New Zealand? (I'm really hoping the answer to this one is yes)
Why was Clint Rickards promoted within the police rapidly, even after a report stated he abused his power?
Why did no-one do something to stop these men?
I've talked to half a dozen women who have been raped by police over the last year, how many more are out there?
What alternatives ways are there that we can get justice for rape survivors where they don't have to go through abusive cross-examination?
Are there actually any 'reasonable doubts' here aren't they all just 'misogynist doubts' or is that considered the same thing?
Why is the past of the woman involved fair game in rape trials?
How many times do I have to yell "it's not a 'sex trial' at Sean Plunkett before he hears me?
Why are the police allowed to investigate their own?

Why did these women have to go through this?

How can we make this stop?

Generally his post made it clear that he didn't think this issue was particularly important. He'd read some of the media it wasn't something he was focusing on (given he didn't know a lot of rather basic facts about the cases), but he thought he'd chime in.

To me, and to so many other women and men throughout New Zealand, this case is important. It's important because we put ourselves in those women's shoes, because we think about the pain and horror that those women went through, because we can imagine how it's affected the rest of their lives, and the lives of the people around them. The way Russel Norman wrote trivialises all that.

I'm not saying that everyone must obsess about this case the way I have. I'm not bedgrudging people sleeping fine, and having time and energy for other things. Even I want to think and write about other things (the Air NZ redundancies are first on the list). But I do believe that anyone who considers themselves politically progressive should give this topic weight and reverence, and realise that they're writing on women's lives and women's pain.

Thursdays in Black: Sexual Violence Survey underway

Louise Nicholas is promoting Rape Crisis' sexual violence questionnaire:

"It is important that the government understand the real but hidden costs that survivors of sexual violence have to carry," Ms Nicholas, an advocate for Rape Prevention Education [aka Rape Crisis], said.

The survey has 14 questions, and is seeking responses from those who were over 16 when any sexual violence occurred and are now over 20. The main focus of the survey is the costs incurred, rather than specific detail about the violence itself, other than asking how long ago it occurred and for how long.

It's anonymous, you can fill it in online, or you can get it by contacting Rape Prevention Education as follows:

Phone Rape Prevention Education on (09) 3600 4001 ext 1, email louise@rapecrisis.org.nz or mail a request to: Louise Nicholas, Cost Barriers Research, RPE, PO Box 78-307, Grey Lynn, Auckland 1245.

The last day for getting your response in is 8th May, which is the last day of Rape Awareness Week. Best to do it early though, to avoid forgetting!

Azlemed emailed me about this via Facebook a while ago and I've only just got the time to write anything decent about it, so apologies for tardiness. Haven't had much blog-time lately!