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

Everywhere

Recently I've been spending a lot of time on the 9th floor of Auckland City Hospital - Neonatal Intensive Care Unit (NICU) is currently the temporary home of my third child, born three weeks ago today.*  Even here, perhaps especially here given the stress of it all, there is violence against women perpetrated by men.

When Early first arrived I was admitted to Ward 96 and he was in nearby Ward 92.  There is a security door between the two wards, which requires a swipe card and only the mothers of babies in Ward 92, who are themselves in Ward 96, are allowed the cards.  Any visitors to my baby were only allowed in, one at a time, with me or the baby's father.  It seemed a bit over the top, until it became apparent that there was a mother and baby in the wards who had a father attempting to visit despite her strong desire for him not to do so.  To keep her safe, and the babies, hers and ours, it was necessary to be super vigilant about that door between Ward 96 and Ward 92, and no doubt at reception for NICU proper, because even here, even in the newborn ward of a hospital, there was a threat of violence.

Then there was this very sad sad story in Whangarei, unfolding at the same time that we were all guarding that door on the 9th floor:

Rachal, 20, died in Whangarei Hospital on June 10 after suffering a severe asthma attack at home. She was eight-and-a-half months pregnant. Her baby was delivered by caesarean section while she was in a coma, but he died in Starship the following day. He was named Robert....Rachal was in the care of the Dingwall Trust, a care and protection facility in Papatoetoe, South Auckland, from nine until she turned 17.The trust's director, Tracie Shipton, says staff had serious concerns about what would happen to Rachal if she returned home. It was also feared she wouldn't get the medical treatment she needed for her asthma and eczema.

The violence is real, the threat is real; it happens everywhere even if we don't see it.  There is a lot of talk about terrorism, focused on the international scene, but it seems to me that so much terror, so much fear and harm, is in everyday lives because of men who hate women, men who abuse women. 

 At the root of most of the recent mass murders we have seen has been a man (or a group of men) who do not see women as full humans; Dylann Roof (Charleston, USA) reckoned he was protecting white women from rape by black men, yet the people he shot dead were mostly black women, and his extreme racism seems to have been coupled with an incredibly patriarchal (at best) attitude to females; Man Haron Monis (Sydney, Australia) had a history of violence against women which, had it been addressed, may have averted the Lindt Cafe siege; Anders Breivik (Norway) blamed feminism for eroding the culture of Europe and advocated for a resurgence of patriarchy; Jody Hunt (West Virginia, USA) killed his ex-girlfriend first; Elliot Rodger (California, USA) specifically drove to a sorority house for his second batch of killings, to punish women in general for rejecting him.  

We cannot properly address and eliminate violence against women until we address and eliminate sexism.  Until we can create a society where women are equal, both in perception and reality, we will not stop all these deaths, assaults and rapes.  And we have to at least try.

*  Baby and I are both doing well thanks, just arrived v early for no discernable reason. 

Roast Busters report from IPCA is scathing

Some quick links:

Release from NZ Police - Young women to receive apology for shortcomings...

Herald report - IPCA: Police "let down" Roast Busters alleged victims

The report itself - (links for PDFs in first paragraph on this page at IPCA website)

Quick comment from me:  It appears that the police involved made a major (and to my mind inexplicable) mistake in somehow deciding that rape law only targeted consenting partners (WTF!), and because the law says you can't consent if you are under 16 somehow you also can't be raped?

Here's a sample from the report, in relation to the lack of consideration of rape charges:

Sexual conduct with a young person under 16 

84. Under section 134 of the Crimes Act 1961, everyone who has a sexual connection with, or does an indecent act on, a young person (under the age of 16 years) has committed an offence and is liable to a term of imprisonment (see paragraph 132). There is no question that these young men were aware that the young women involved in the six cases investigated by CPT staff were under 16 years. As a result of their interaction with Police officers, it is also evident that several of the young men (certainly by the time the investigation into Case 1 had concluded) were aware that they were committing an offence, irrespective of their own ages. 

85. Critically, the offence of ‘sexual conduct with a young person under 16’ did not require Police to determine whether there was consent. They merely had to prove that sexual connection had occurred and that the complainant was under 16 at the time. Clearly, therefore, the evidential threshold for prosecution was met. The only question for the Police was whether it was in the public interest to prosecute.
86. The Authority recognises that it is uncommon for Police to prosecute a young person under section 134 for sexual connection with a person of the same or a similar age. This is because often such cases involve two young people, close together in age, who are engaging in mutually consenting sexual activity, and it is determined by Police that the public interest is not served by prosecution. 

87. It is clear that this general thinking underpinned the approach taken by the officers in these cases. Indeed, Officer D told the Authority that he and Officer C determined that prosecutions under section 134 were “inappropriate” because two of the three young men were under 16 at the time of the offending. He added that section 134 is intended for “consenting parties” and that, if it had been used to bring a prosecution in Case 3, it would have implied that the Police did not believe the victim’s initial account that she was not consenting. 

88. The Authority does not accept the validity of this reasoning, as there were a number of aggravating features in these cases that should have prompted consideration of such a prosecution. In four of these cases the young women were between two and three years younger than the young men involved. They were vulnerable (due to factors such as their level of intoxication); the extent to which they were willing parties was at best equivocal; and they Section 127 of the Act states, “There is no presumption of law that a person is incapable of sexual connection because of his or her age.”  The young men involved in these cases were aged between 14 and 17 years at the time of the incidents. 2424 were subject to sexual acts by more than one young man. The behaviour of the young men was demonstrably unacceptable and required a response. 

89. In our view, the fact that the parties are close together in age, while a relevant factor, is not determinative. Moreover, it is perverse to conclude that a prosecution for sexual violation cannot be brought because there is insufficient evidence to prove lack of consent beyond reasonable doubt, but then to reject a prosecution under section 134 on the basis that it would imply the existence of consent. The reality is that a prosecution under section 134 says nothing about the presence or absence of consent, because it is simply irrelevant to the facts that need to be proved.
90. At the least, officers should have discussed this option with victims and explained the implications to them. They were remiss in failing to do so.

The secrets that we keep

Note:  Recently I've been watching Downton Abbey, and I'm up to Season 4.  I'm not going to put any spoilers in the post, but there may end up being some in comments, and I wanted to acknowledge upfront what's prompted me to write this.  Content warning for discussion of rape, consent, secret keeping.

As I've aged I've become privy to secrets I was oblivious to.  I discovered, to give but one example, that my family is riddled with adoption stories, some good some not so good.  Every adult in my parents' generation, on both sides of my family, has either adopted a child or had a child adopted, and in one case both.  I'm pretty sure that has all come out now, into the open, but I could well be wrong.  These are stories with their origins in the 1960s, mostly, and some of the people involved are unknown to me or have died, so I'll never know it all.  These aren't secrets anymore, and they were the unacknowledged realities of others, not me.

The difficulty I'm musing on is in relation to the secrets of other people, and how those of us who keep them are obligated, or not, to disclose them.

Take a situation where you're aware that someone is a sexual predator.  You're also aware that the person (or people) who you know they have attacked desperately don't want anyone else to know.  You can shun the predator, exclude them from the realms you control, even let them know that you know.  But without broader disclosure other people will be in danger, the predator is unlikely to realise the horrible error of their ways and seek help, the predator is unlikely to be held accountable, other victims you don't know about may feel isolated and at fault.  You end up keeping a secret for a friend, someone viciously attacked and feeling awful, but that advantages the predator, not least with continuing their heinous activity.

Then of course there is the lack of justice in this country (and most others from what I can see) for situations like this.  If I could put my hand on my heart and say please go to the police if you are raped, they will do a good job, then I would.  But I can't.  And so I can understand the decision of those who don't report, knowing how difficult it would be to do so, especially when the person who has attacked them is in their circle, their family, their workplace.

To disclose a secret that belongs to another robs them of agency, and in cases like the example I've given above, and many others, they have already had power stripped from them, and I don't want to contribute to repeating that experience, even in part.

Silence enables abuse to continue.  Yet speaking out is not without cost, not least for those who have already suffered.

I believe Dylan Farrow

I believe Dylan Farrow.

Almost every time I am going to believe the victim rather than accused, when it comes to matters of rape, sexual abuse, abuse of power, and the like.  I think it's important to redress the massive power imbalance in these cases by giving more weight to the voice, the story, the experiences of the victim.  I believe Louise Nicholas too.

I understand that the way the justice system works is different.  Due to the presumption of innocence, currently it seems impossible to give anything approaching equal weight to victim and accused.  Ironically, what does serve to provide some balance are other prejudices coming in to play.  The version of the victim will be considered more believable if they are cis female, white, "presentable", middle-class, virginal/married to someone other than the accused, acted in accepted ways before, during and after being assaulted/abused.  The version of the accused will be discounted in part or whole if cis male, physically powerful, brown, a stranger to the victim, poor, shown to be non-vanilla in sexual preferences and practices.

I can form a different opinion from the verdicts the justice system produces.  I can make up my own mind.  It has no consequences for the legal outcomes if I do.

But, if I can express my belief in the victim and their story in a way they become aware of, or other victims and survivors become aware, then I'm hopeful I'm expressing some solidarity, some support, for them.  That in some small way I am helping to redress the tilt the justice system applies, on a social level if not a legal one.


Comment direction:  I am not interested in debating my central premise here in the comments below, as I believe that could be very harmful to readers.  I'll be deleting comments that denigrate victims, propose that the accused in these cases is the underdog, anything like that.  I am interested in discussion of how we make the justice system fairer in these contexts, up against the (important) presumption of innocence of the accused, and I have no easy answers on that.

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.

Racism, a license to kill

Several years ago my best friend sat on the jury for a hate crime case.  The prosecution and defence agreed that the accused had refused to pay a taxi driver, who he called a "Paki bastard" before he broke the taxi driver's arm.  The defence argued that the incident was an assault, not a hate crime.

The judge directed the British jury to find the accused guilty "if they believed he had used the words 'Paki bastard' before the assault." 

The jury found him not guilty of hate crime, because as one of the other white men on the jury said "I call people Pakis all the time, that's not racist."  My friend and the sole person of colour on the jury were unable to stop the majority verdict.

Now, the recent killing of African American teenager Trayvon Martin. 

It's not disputed that George Zimmerman got out of his car, with a gun, to follow Trayvon Martin, who was walking home while Black.  It's not disputed that George Zimmerman shot and killed Trayvon Martin.

Similarly, when Māori teenager Pihema Cameron was killed in Auckland in 2008, it was not disputed that Bruce Emery had chased Pihema down the street to stab him.

Yet both George Zimmerman (not guilty) and Bruce Emery (reduced sentence of manslaughter due to family standing) avoided being found guilty of murder. 

The men who killed Pihema Cameron and Trayvon Martin said they were afraid.

The white imagination is coached to see people of colour as dangerous.  We learn early and often.  When I was nine my school principal called me into his office after I'd been fighting an older girl who was bullying my sister.  The principal told me to stop hanging around my friends, as they were leading me astray.  I thought this was strange, since neither of them were involved in the fight.  I laughed about it with my friends, both of whom were Māori, afterwards.  Somehow, looking back, I doubt they were finding it quite as amusing as I was.  White privilege is funny that way.

I felt sick when I heard George Zimmerman would walk free, and the deja vu with Pihema Cameron was unavoidable.  But the problem isn't just Trayvon Martin and Pihema Cameron's killers, if it was this would be easier.

The problem is when George Zimmerman and Bruce Emery say they were afraid while they chased after unarmed young men of colour with guns and knives, lots and lots of white people can imagine how that felt, because they feel it too. 

If George Zimmerman and Bruce Emery were afraid, imagine how Trayvon Martin and Pihema Cameron felt, chased down and killed in cold blood.  Imagine how it feels to know that other young men who look like you have been killed - just for walking and looking like you.  Imagine how it feels to be told by the criminal justice system that those killings don't count as real crimes, because you don't count as a real victim.

That's what we need to change.  The dominance of white narratives, telling stories - both historical and current - from one perspective.  The white imagination, and the excuses "othering" gives us, for all manner of racist inequalities. The reluctance of white people to call out racism when it's there, because it might implicate too many of us. 

Rest in peace Trayvon Martin.  I don't know what more to say but that your death fills me with pain and despair and horror.  You should still be here, walking home in your hoodie, instead of being the latest casualty of racism's license to kill.

*I'm aware George Zimmerman is not white.  This post is more about the dominance of white narratives and the impacts that has on all of us. 

waitangi day

waitangi day, again.

i started the day with a powhiri at civic square in hamilton, in front of the city council building.  following the powhiri, there were a few speeches, some songs, a prayer and then refreshements.

it was an hour-long event, which is time enough to hear quite a few words.  unfortunately i don't understand maori enough to follow what the speakers in te reo were expressing, though i did catch a few words here and there.

but there were plenty of words in english that i did understand.  speeches about partnership and founding history, and the importance of the treaty.  there were words about multi-culturalism and being one people.  there was talk of celebrating the positive and the nz spirit & identity.  people talked about finding the common and focusing on that.

and for those who did talk about the historical context of the treaty, they talked about the period between 1815 & 1840, they talked about what happened at waitangi, and the next historical point of mention was 1960, when waitangi day was legally established and then 1975 when the treaty of waitangi act was passed.

everyone mentioned the signing, the partnership, but not one single person mentioned the breaches.  it's as if the period between the signing of the treaty and the setting up of the waitangi didn't exist, as if we can't dare to acknowledge the problematic parts of our history.  as if, as part of our national day, we should pretend that injustice and dispossession never happened.  to mention it would somehow put a dampener on the day.

and yet part of celebrating nz and nz'ers, part of celebrating our history and our present is to own all of that history, to acknowledge the bad as well as the good.  because that is all part of what this country is, that is part of our history, and to erase it by refusing to mention that it happened only shows the speakers' shame and embarrassment.  it's certainly not ignorance, because i know all the people who spoke, and i know that they have a good grounding of our history - good enough to speak about it with honesty, had they so chosen.

it's not negative to speak about the bad parts of our history.  it's worse to totally ignore it and pretend it never happened. it's more respectful of all of us to tell the truth of what happened, and that can easily done in ways that aren't in-your-face or confrontational (though it doesn't have to be), even if it does make some people uncomfortable.  but just skipping over it as if it doesn't happened doesn't change the fact that it did.

it's positive to acknowledge our history and to talk about how we can make things better.  and to talk about all the people and institutions who have been working hard to make things better.  and to talk about all the things that still need to happen, all the work that still needs to be done.

the one thing that truly p*sses me off is to write off any mention of that history as "holding grievances" or being divisive.  there is absolutely nothing wrong to be upset about past injustices, and to talk about the impact they have even today.  there is nothing wrong with feeling anger and frustration, and nobody has to get over it just because other people are unable to deal with the expressions of justified emotion on a day when we acknowledge what it is to be a nz'er.

it is more divisive and more negative to stifle those expressions and to enforce a silence on things that we should never be silent about.  so, i expected more from the ceremony this morning.  especially since it was the only formal commemoration of waitangi day in the city.  hamilton used to have a full day celebration by the lake, at innes common, with stalls and food and rides for the children, along with music and performances from a wide range of cultural groups.  but the funding for that got cancelled, and this is all we have left.

i think we can do better.

This is what Rape Culture looks like

From Imagining the Solution, who were inspired by the Washington Post graphic for the US figures.

Reading reports helps sometimes

More on Judith Collins and the alternative trial processes for sexual violence.  In parliament today Minister Collins explained she didn't want to have different processes for sexual violence cases than other kinds of awful crimes like kidnapping and murder - despite the crimes having different conviction rates and different experiences for those victimised.  She then tried to quote an opposition MP before being reminded by Lockwood Smith that she was supposed to be answering the question herself.

Minister Collins looks rattled on this - and underdone.  She doesn't appear to have read the Law Commission recommendations, or understand that the justice system is failing survivors of sexual violence in unique, proven-by-research ways.  She looks like she doesn't understand the issues.  She looks like she doesn't care. 

It's not a good look for a Minister of Justice with designs on party leadership.  Check it out here.

Terrible news for rape survivors

We finally have an answer to the many years work that have gone into trying to change our justice system's response to sexual violence so that it feels less retraumatising for survivors.

Justice Minister Judith Collins "isn't interested."

Justice Minister Judith Collins has reduced the Law Commission research and consultation, with an wide range of suggestions, most of which could be done within our present legal system, to "her predecessor Simon Power's plan to introduce an inquisitorial system in New Zealand."

Justice Minister Judith Collins says she will be shelving this consultation - this independent examination of the fact that for the last thirty-five years those working in the criminal justice system have raised concerns about how we prosecute cases of sexual violence.  This despite the Law Commission website still saying they will be summarising the 500 + submissions they received about this by, well, six days time.

Earlier I shared research about how those in the criminal justice system feel about sexual violence cases.  Police Officers who say:

"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."

Crown Prosecutors who say:

"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. "

Yet Justice Minister Judith Collins knows better, by reducing all of the work that has gone into imagining survivors not feeling re-victimised by going to court to try to stop sexual offending to "an inquisitorial system".

Look again, Justice Minister.  This isn't a pissing contest with Simon Power.  It's real people's lives.  Whether we want the inquisitorial system or not - and isn't that what the Law Commission research and consultation was for, to decide that? - whether we want that or not, there are a myriad suggestions which could improve survivors experiences now which were part of this consultation.

Read it.  Listen to experts like law academic Elisabeth McDonald.  Stop acting like the Ultimate Ruler of the Universe.  Start acting like you care about Justice.

That awkward moment when someone asks me to sign the Family First Protect Marriage petition

I spied her clipboard from across the room, as she drew it slowly from her bag.   Noting the image across the top of the petition sheet, my heart sank.  It was the Family First Protect Marriage petition and it had no good purpose being anywhere near me.

"You'll sign this won't you?  To protect marriage!"

"Ah no, I've already signed the other one, the opposite one, in fact."

Shocked look.

"But, but, but, you're MARRIED!"

"Yes, and I think any two people who love each other should be able to marry.  Let's make it open to more people, and share the love."

"Oh."

We both found something else important to do elsewhere.

---

Opposite sex marriage is simply not under attack.  It doesn't need to be protected from same sex marriage at all.  Marriage is about a commitment between people* which has meaning for them.  What I might think about their marriage is irrelevant.  What happens in my marriage doesn't impact on anyone else's marriage, or civil union, in any way.  What does Family First think they are protecting marriage from?

Tonight a friend of mine, who happens to be gay, mentioned to me how he appreciated my support because this doesn't affect me.  In a way it is easier for me to be out there about my views, precisely because it is not about me;  there is no criticism of the way I live my life, of the person I am, in all the many awful arguments against marriage equality that I have seen.  I really feel for those out there who are on the frontlines of this in a way I am not; many of whom will not want to be even having a battle, and shouldn't have to be, to justify who they are.

There are many many people who support marriage equality, for reasons of justice and fairness, and just down right treating everyone as a full human being.  We should be making the world better than it was when we arrived, for those who come after, and marriage equality is one little way to help.

---

For those interested in the debate and vote on the first reading, estimates so far is that it is likely to occur at around 8pm Wednesday night.  There is a celebration rally going from Civic Square to Parliament tomorrow also, from 12noon.   There is a great deal of activity on Facebook in support of Louisa Wall's Bill too, not least longstanding group LegaliseLove, the adorable Can these otters holding hands get more fans than Protect Marriage NZ? (the answer is YES THEY CAN), and a range of pages showing that support is definitely not restricted to Pakeha queer atheists, but is rather more widespread than that: Tagata Pasifika for Marriage Equality, Christians for Marriage Equality Aotearoa NZ  and Straights for Marriage Equality in Aotearoa NZ (SMEANZ).

Currently the Bill looks likely to pass its first reading tomorrow night.  The process from there is that it goes to Select Committee for public submissions.  After that it gets a second and then a third and final reading in Parliament.  After the third reading it is officially law.



*  I'm pretty open-minded on the issue of polyamorous marriage.  I think it has had a bad reputation because it has most commonly been seen in societies where women do not have high status and has thus been a tool for oppressing women, but it doesn't have to be that way imho.  This is not really a post about that though.


Comment direction:  No hate in the comments thanks, plenty of other places on the interweb for that, sadly.  There have been a lot of amazing posts about this issue over the last few weeks, not least from my co-bloggers, so you may wish to share the ones that particularly appealed to you in comments :-)

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.

The comedy of our justice system

Content note: this post discusses a disturbing case in which child sexual abuse has been repeatedly minimised by our courts.  The links post to material which may trigger distress because they feature either details of the case or Judge comments, please be careful.

The Comedian who admitted he sexually assaulted his daughter is due back in court, after the Crown appealed Judge Cunningham's original sentence from nearly a year ago.  This case caused an uproar, as New Zealanders were outraged that a Judge could essentially say child sexual abuse wasn't that big a deal because the person abusing was funny.

The Comedian will be in back at Auckland District Court at 10am, Friday 27 July.  Judge Mark Perkins will be sitting, and he has already said:

...he must decide how much the man's daughter has been affected by the offending. "There is an argument that the [psychological] effect on the child of the offending is a result not of the offending itself but the actual breakup of the family."

Right.  So it's not the child abuse that's the problem, it's the fact a woman decided not to remain in a relationship with a man who sexually abused their child.  Because if she'd chosen to stay, that would have been fine with everyone, right?

And then there is the report from the child psychologist, who says this wee four year old girl feels responsible for the incident, and has twice been referred to Auckland Sexual Abuse HELP for specialist counselling.

The psychologist noted she had developed "a strong sense of doubt about her own self worth". She was also pulling her hair - a "behavioural disturbance" associated with stress.

I wish I could be in Auckland for this sentencing.  If any feminist action is planned, please let us know and we'll post details here.  That court date again: Auckland District Court, Friday 27 July, 10am.

Women's work

It's time

Well actually, it's past time.  But now is still good.

If you want to vote on this poll, (screenshot above taken at 11am) it's at this Stuff article.

Summing it up for the Law Commission

We have a once in a lifetime opportunity to ask for a criminal justice system which is fairer, more effective and less traumatising for survivors of sexual violence.  But I'm aware many people who want to submit to the Law Commission on alternative trial processes are finding the submission form difficult to use, so I've written some summary points to help.  There are also summary guides from Auckland Sexual Abuse Help here and here.

I support all of the Law Commission recommendations for alternative trial processes for sexual offences.  In particular I support:

1. Establishing Independent Sexual Violence Advisors who can advocate on behalf of victims throughout the police and court processes, including explaining alternatives to the criminal justice system such as restorative justice or kaupapa Maori approaches.
2. Sexual violence being treated by the criminal justice system as a specialist area with specialist knowledge, training and guidelines required.  Aotearoa New Zealand is not alone in the western world in having a justice system which demonstrably re-traumatises victims.  We can lead the world in developing specialist responses and training all court personnel, lawyers, judges and specialist lay jury members in sexual violence.
3. Moving away from the current adversarial system which is a competition, and towards a system of inquiry which is led by specialist, trained judges and lay jury members.    
4. Providing a pathway for people who cause sexual harm who plead guilty to access appropriate treatment through a Specialist Sexual Violence Court system.  We should be making it as easy as possible for people to stop offending and develop skills in taking responsibility for sexually harmful behaviour.  Our processes at the moment do not facilitate behaviour change for offenders.
5. The rights of victims being strengthened at every stage of the court process in line with the Law Commission recommendations.  In particular, the extension of risk assessment to children who may have been sexually abused is most welcome.
6. Alternatives to the criminal justice sector which place the well-being of the victim at the centre, including specialist restorative justices processes or kaupapa Maori approaches.
   

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.

And for the last time, I'll remind everyone what our national survivor advocate Louise Nicholas has to say:

National Rape Crisis and the Law Commission

Many thanks to Georgia Knowles, National Co-ordinator of Nga Whitiki Whanau Ahuru Mowai O Aotearoa/National Collective of Rape Crisis and Related Groups of Aotearoa for this post. National Rape Crisis was formed in 1982 out of the grass roots feminist movement to eliminate sexual violence. Currently there are nine affiliated centres; Mid North Family Support Rape Crisis and Youth Services Keri Keri, Dargaville SOS, Hamilton Rape and Sexual Abuse Healing Centre, Whangarei Rape Crisis, Wairarapa Rape and Sexual Abuse, West Coast Rape Crisis, Dunedin Rape Crisis, Tauranga Rape Crisis and Napier Rape Crisis.

National Rape Crisis aims to provide a public profile for the issue of rape and sexual violence in New Zealand and our overall goal is the elimination of violence against women and children. We work from a feminist based philosophy of sexual violence that believes that rape is the degradation of a person’s whole self, and includes all sexual acts forced on unwilling participants and all forms of coercion, not only physical. We believe that rape and the fear of rape is a powerful form of social control because they are an invasion of spiritual, bodily and emotional integrity.

Collectively, our centres offer support for women and children survivors of current or historic rape and sexual abuse, their partners, whanau and friends.

We support the possible reforms to the pre trial and trial processes of the criminal justice system proposed by the New Zealand Law Commission. We believe that the proposed reforms have value in creating a criminal justice system that aims to reduce the secondary trauma and victimisation that survivors experience in the current process, and that the reforms are better aligned with survivors own concepts of justice.

Research involving survivors who have been involved in the justice system shows that they regard the criminal justice system as the primary institution for providing justice in response to sexual offences. Being provided with an avenue to achieve a meaningful sense of justice through a formal system response is considered to be of high importance. Further to this, the criminal justice system was considered an important symbol for representing the attitudes of society in regards to sexual violence.

In light of the perspectives of survivors in regard to the justice system, we believe that not only are these reforms extremely valuable for the way that they could change the experiences of survivors in the future who will proceed through the criminal justice system, we can also consider them to be symbolic of what we hope to achieve within our wider communities. These reforms show that as a country, we have listened to the voices of survivors and have acknowledged that they have suffered and been re-victimised within our current justice system and that this is unacceptable. That we believe that rape culture is real and is damaging. That victim blame, disbelief and rape myth are perpetuated and instiutionalised within our current system and the affects of this are serious, and create a barrier to true justice.

Further to this, similar research suggests that survivors conceptualise justice as multi faceted. On an individual level they wanted authorities to acknowledge the wrong that was done to them. They wanted the perpetrators to be identified, made accountable, and to face consequences (although not necessarily through imprisonment). On a local community level, they want resources, support and education. On a societal level, they want authorities to identify sexual assault as a serious issue and to establish processes to prevent further sexual offending.

So “justice” for survivors is enacted through the criminal justice system but also throughout wider society. This is in line with the recommendations of Taskforce for Action on Sexual Violence that only 9% of sexual abuse incidents are reported to police so the solutions lie “beyond the criminal justice system as well as within it”. National Rape Crisis support these reforms as one, extremely important, part of the wider efforts of the sexual violence sector in New Zealand. Efforts that include ensuring adequate and appropriate support, and resources, for ALL survivors regardless of their class, ethnicity, gender, sexuality or age. That these resources are available where and when survivors need them, for as long as they need them for, and are not based on obligations. And the considerable work that goes into establishing the provision of consistent and quality education, preventative and otherwise, to all communities in Aotearoa.

The elimination of violence against women and children is paramount to the goals of Nga Whitiki Whanau Ahuru Mowai O Aotearoa and we believe these reforms to be a positive step towards this goal. We encourage everyone to write a submission in support of the Law Commissions proposed changes to the pre trial and trial processes of the Criminal Justice system. The real world knowledge and experiences of individuals and communities is instrumental to creating the changes that we wish to see in Aotearoa.

Cheat Sheet: What the Law Commission says....

If we accept that the criminal justice system doesn't work for survivors of sexual violence now, and that the current Law Commission recommendations are a wonderful opportunity to make the system fairer, more effective, and less traumatising for survivors there is still the question of what the recommendations are saying, and how they might work.

This is a cheat sheet. I've borrowed liberally from the excellent work by Auckland Sexual Abuse Help. Sections refer to the Law Commission document, and I've noted whether the reforms are designed for sexual offences or could be open to all offences.

Section 2: Pre Trial
2A: Laying and reviewing charges - sexual violence
The complainant would be able to request a review of initial charging decisions (whether or not to charge and which charge is laid). The review would be conducted by a senior prosecutor who specialises in sexual offence cases.

2B Role of victim in pre-trial process - open
The victim would be able to request a review of any decision to amend or drop charges. If it was a police prosecutor decision, the review would be carried out by a senior prosecutor. If it was a Crown Solicitor decision, the review would be carried out by a Crown Solicitor based in a different area. This right of review would not apply to decisions to amend or drop charges in the context of a court appearance, where the decision is made in front of a judge.

2C: Guidelines for prosecution of sexual offences
Separate guidelines for the prosecution of sexual offence cases would be established, specifying the particular approach needing to be taken to the decision to prosecute in sexual offence cases. This would not necessarily result in a change to the threshold for evidential sufficiency.

2D Pre-trial evidence issues - open
A case dossier with all evidence available at the time would be prepared by the prosecutor in consultation with the defence. Any defence evidence would be provided for inclusion in the dossier. The expectation would be that all known witnesses would be identified in the dossier, though other witnesses could still be called.

Ideally the judge at the pre-trial stage would be the same judge as at trial. The judge would decide before the trial whether there was enough evidence to go to trial; which witnesses should be called; whether expert evidence was required, and if so which experts should be called; how evidence was to be given at trial, and the extent to which written statements would form the evidence; the complainant could apply to give evidence orally in court if they wished; whether to direct further investigation if the judge considered that it was required.

2E Pre-trial appearance of accused - open
Unless a hearing potentially required the input of the accused, the issue would be resolved by the judge and counsel without a formal court hearing. Formal court hearings would only be held:

• for the entry of a plea after (and not before) legal representation was arranged;
• for case review/callover stage, which would occur only if the defendant’s appearance was necessary to resolve the issue at hand;
• for pre-recording evidence before trial, if any;
• for trial;
• for sentence;
• whenever there was an application that the defendant be remanded in custody.

Section Three: Characteristics of the trial court

3A: Who should determine the verdict? Open to sexual offences; “problematic” offences or all cases able to be tried by jury
The facts in a trial would be decided either by a judge sitting alone or by a judge and two jurors. The jurors would receive a copy of the case dossier prior to trial so that they as well as the judge were familiar with the evidence. The judge and jurors would deliberate together as a joint panel.

3B: Verdict – open
The judge and jurors would give written reasons for the verdict, reflecting the views of the majority about the facts. Conflicts between judge and juror(s) would be noted, but they would all need to be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt as to the verdict. There would be no majority verdicts. The view of the judge would prevail on matters of law.

3C: Sentencing - application open
In cases being tried by a judge and two jurors, there would need to be a majority view about the factual basis for the offending on which sentencing should proceed. If facts relevant to sentencing had not been determined in reaching the verdict, the judge would ensure that those decisions are reached at the end of the trial. The judge would then impose the sentence using the current process.

3D: Specialist Judges - sexual violence
There would be a specialist training programme for judges who wished to preside in sexual offences cases. After initial training, judges would be required to undergo regular ongoing training to ensure they were up-to-date with recent developments.

3E: Accredited counsel for sexual offence cases - sexual violence
Both prosecution and defence counsel would be required to be accredited - by undergoing specialist training - before they could act on sexual offence cases. Further ongoing training would be required for counsel to remain accredited. Guidelines would set out the accreditation standards and obligations applying to accredited counsel.

Section Four: Trial Procedure
4A: How is evidence presented and who is in control of the process - open
The judge would be in control of the trial process and would be largely responsible for the way in which the evidence was given. The parties would have a more limited role. The judge would decide the order for witnesses to give evidence, and would question witnesses first. Parties would only ask questions of a witness after the judge had finished questioning.

The style of questioning engaged in by both judges and counsel would be substantially different from the style to which judges or lawyers in New Zealand have been accustomed. Significant training would therefore be required to ensure that evidence was elicited in the most effective way.

The witness’ statement in the case dossier would form their evidence but the witness would still be required to answer questions by the judge. However, evidence would be given in more of a narrative than a question-and-answer form, thus enabling witnesses to present their account of events in a more natural and conversational way.

4B: Evidence by the defendant - open
The defendant would give evidence first, unless the judge decided otherwise. The defendant would be subject to questions by the judge, but would not be obliged to respond to questions. The defendant could respond to questions, if he or she chose to do so, by speaking personally or through his or her lawyer. The defendant would be under an obligation to submit to questions whether or not he or she had provided a statement to the Court in the case dossier.

4C: Admissibility of evidence - open
If the fact-finder were to be changed to judge alone or to a judge sitting with two lay jurors, many rules of evidence could be dispensed with. Relevant evidence, including the defendant’s criminal history, would generally be admissible, with its weight being determined by the fact-finder.

Rules requiring evidence to be relevant and avoid unnecessary repetition would still be required. So too would rules about the complainant’s sexual history, because of the impact on the complainant of the admission of such evidence.

4D: Evidence of vulnerable witnesses - open
Cases involving vulnerable witnesses should be fast-tracked wherever this can be achieved, so that the trial occurs as quickly as possible. Where fast-tracking is not possible, pre-recording of evidence (including cross-examination) ought to be considered.

Assistance in answering questions should be more widely available than solely for witnesses with a “communication disability”. This would allow phrasing of questions in an appropriate way.

4E: Role of the complainant - sexual violence
A victim of sexual offending would have an Independent Sexual Violence Advisor (ISVA) allocated to them from the first contact with the Police or another agency. The ISVA would provide support, advice and assistance for the victim until their complaint is resolved. The ISVA would liaise with the Officer in Charge of the case and the prosecutor during investigation and prosecution, and would have the expertise to inform a complainant about issues such as name suppression, the trial process, the stages of the criminal justice process, the role of the prosecutor, the complainant’s ability to have a support person (at trial, when giving evidence, or during pre-trial interview), the role of the complainant as a witness, what to expect from cross-examination and general witness preparation, and other applicable rules of evidence, including the availability of alternative ways of giving evidence.

4F: Child protection orders - sexual violence
If on the balance of probabilities it was determined that the defendant had offended and either the victim in this case or other children were still at risk, the court would have the ability to make child protection orders in relation to the accused. This would be a civil order that would be time-limited, subject to appeal and regular review. Such orders would not involve detention but might cover treatment and non-association with children.

Referral for assessment of risk would be limited to cases where there had been a criminal prosecution (whether that led to an acquittal or a conviction), so a civil order would be available only in those cases. There might be an argument that given that the order is based on the balance of probabilities, it should be available on application whether or not there had been a prosecution.

Section Five: Specialist sexual violence court – post-guilty plea
Where there is a complaint to the Police and an offender pleads guilty to a sexual offence, there would be an option of referral to a specialist sexual violence court. With informed victim agreement, the suitability of the offender for participation in some form of intervention would be the governing criteria for whether the case was dealt with in the specialist court. Cases which did not meet the criteria would progress in the usual way.

The referral would be assisted by a victim impact statement indicating the impact of the offending on the victim, and could include reasons why they support referral to the specialist court in this particular case. Once referred to the specialist court, the judge would remand for a specialist case assessment to ensure suitability for the specialist court process.

After assessment, a report addressing the suitability of the case for the specialist court process and the development of an intervention plan would be delivered to the court; the intervention plan would comprise a tailored set of actions for the individual to complete, to enable them to take responsibility for their behaviour and address its causes, and could include treatment, education, reparations, apologies or other actions as appropriate to the case.

If the specialist court judge was satisfied on the basis of the specialist report that the case was suitable for the specialist court process, the offender would be offered entry into the court and asked to commit to the proposed intervention plan.

Supervision of the intervention would be the responsibility of the specialist team who would have the ability to bring the case back before the court at any time if there were concerns about the offender’s compliance. The specialist court judge would also have discretion to seek periodic reports on the offender’s progress with the intervention plan and bring the offender back before the court.

If the offender was declined entry to for refused to commit to the intervention (or entered but later withdrew agreement to participate), the case would proceed to sentencing in the usual manner.

All counsel appearing in the court would be required to undergo specialist training.

At the conclusion of the intervention, the offender would receive a sentence that would reflect participation in and progress after the intervention, which may or may not involve imprisonment.

Section Six: Alternative processes for sexual offence cases
An alternative process outside of the criminal justice system would resolve sexual offence cases if the victim wished, either instead of a complaint to the Police or at the point of complaint to the Police. The process would be tailored to the nature of the case, the wishes and needs of the victim, and the need to ensure victim safety.

This could only proceed with the agreement of the accused. The case would be assessed by specialist providers to determine whether it was suitable for an alternative resolution process or whether it was unsuitable, for example because the accused’s previous convictions indicated that he or she posed too great a risk to community safety.

This assessment would be carried out in consultation with the police and other agencies where appropriate, such as the Child, Youth and Family Service, in order to properly assess the risk to community safety.

The accused would need to accept that there had been a sexual encounter of some kind and be willing to engage in an alternative resolution process, including agreeing to participate in an appropriate intervention.

Nothing the accused said in the course of the process could be used as evidence in any later criminal proceedings. However, information provided by the accused could be used to trigger further investigation by police, the outcome of which could be used if prosecution for that offence or any other offence ensued.

The process would result in a set of agreed outcomes that might include a requirement for the accused to undergo treatment or education; if an agreed outcome were treatment, then a further assessment would be required to assess the suitability of the accused for participation in treatment.

The case could be referred back to the criminal justice system if no agreed outcome could be achieved or an accused failed to participate in an acceptable way and to fulfill any undertakings made; protocols would be needed for what constituted acceptable participation, and for the conditions under which the case would be referred back to the criminal justice system (for example, additional offending).

If the accused participated in good faith and fulfilled all undertakings, referral back to the criminal justice system for this offence would not take place.