Brown lives matter

The perennial cheerleader for arming New Zealand Police, Greg O'Connor, is at it again.  In true NRA styles, O'Connor has renewed his call for guns straight after Vaughan Te Moananui was shot dead by Police on the weekend.  He similarly used the shooting of Steven Wallace by Police in 2000 to campaign for more weaponry, in that case, the introduction of tazers.

Criminologist John Buttle described O'Connor's Police Association as "obsessed" with arming the Police back in 2010:

"The justification for routinely arming the NZP with pepper spray was that it could be used to protect the police from incidents of violence. When they wanted to introduce the tazer the police used the media to discredit the supposed effectiveness of pepper spray and champion their latest weapon of choice. Now it seems that tazers do not offer enough protection and only firearms can save police lives.... The way things are at the moment suggests that in the near future the police association will use the next unfortunate incident as a means to justify the routine arming of every police officer in New Zealand."

It's certainly topical. The wave of rage and grief sweeping through the United States right now was born out of community pain when Black teenager Trayvon Martin's killer was acquitted.  In the US, a Black person is killed by the Police or vigilante law enforcement every 28 hours.  Armed Police aren't the only reason.  But if you put a gun in the hand of institutional racism, you better believe Black lives will not matter.

And institutionally racist is exactly how the United Nations described New Zealand's criminal justice system in 2013, right before they told us we needed to improve our record-keeping about discrimination:

"The Committee, however, remains concerned at the disproportionately high rates of incarceration and the over representation of members of the Mãori and Pasifika communities at every stage of the criminal justice system."

By the time we're talking prison, differential treatment by ethnicity in the justice system is stark:

51% of people in our prisons are tangata whenua.  Colonisation is literally allowing us to lock up Māori, with Pacifica not far behind. 

But it's perhaps more salient to think about how the Police use their latest new weapon, the tazer.  We can compare two fascinating reports, from after national rollout in 2010 to last report 2013.  In terms of ethnicity:

In 2010/11, Pacifica were more likely than Māori, who were more likely than Pākehā, to be tazered.  By 2013, that hasn't changed.  Rates of tazering every ethnicity have increased dramatically at pretty similar rates and so the gaps between Pākehā and Māori and Pacifica are widening.    I've not been able to find the ethnicities of those killed by the Police in New Zealand (22 up until 2008), but I know the ethnicities of the men I remember, and they're not Pākehā.

How people experience the justice system in Aotearoa is "raced" at every point, including imprisonment and state violence sites.  If this concerns you - especially if you're Pākehā - don't turn your back, stand up against arming the Police.  Brown lives matter.

“Some problems we share as women, some we do not. You fear your children will grow up to join the patriarchy and testify against you; we fear our children will be dragged from a car and shot down in the street, and you will turn your backs on the reasons they are dying.”

The fundamentally anti-women notion at the heart of anti-abortion campaigns laid bare

Content warning:  This is a post about the tactics of an anti-abortion campaign currently underway, the arguments they make, and as such will include some unpleasantness.  I'm just going to turn off comments on my posts about abortion at the moment because I don't have time to monitor a comment thread and some people won't respect the rules.  If you want to tell me something in particular as a result of this post then you can email us or tweet me @juliefairey.

--

I blogged last week about the paradox of Choose Life, a new campaign (launched for Lent donchaknow) aimed at pressuring and intimidating people seeking an abortion (but it's your choice, honest), and ultimately wanting to have forced pregnancies, rather than allow anyone to terminate.

Well today we have the people who are supporting this contradiction positively bragging about enabling someone to harass their pregnant partner, who was seeking an abortion at a clinic in Auckland, to the point where the police were called twice.

Let's be clear; this example shows us precisely what the opposition to abortion are all about: denying those with uteruses power over their own bodies, and encouraging those who aren't pregnant to hold sway over those who are.  Most of the time that is going to be a woman disempowered, harassed, upset, abused, and a man taking power, harassing, hectoring, abusing.  And that is fundamentally anti-women.

The 40 Days For Life crew have the gall to argue, in the above linked  post, that:

• Men should step up and speak out about abortion, especially "post-abortive men".  First up you need to understand that "post-abortive men" are not chaps who were going to mail a letter but then decided not to.  Then you need to ignore the fact that the Go To Anti Abortion Media Commentariat in our country are (both) male (Ken Orr and Bob McCroskrie for those following along at home). Finally please do deny the really rather undeniable biological fact that if men get to decide about abortions then that would mean that in most cases the actual pregnant person doesn't get to decide about continuing their own pregnancy.  And I rather suspect that those who are anti-abortion aren't keen on giving men who do get pregnant a say either.
• Abortion allows the objectification of women, and no doubt without it we would all be living in a feminist paradise in which women ate chocolates constantly while men served their every whim, in recognition of their divine role as wombs, or something.  I rather doubt the feminist commitment of a group whose main campaign is in favour of forced pregnancy.
• They helped a "distraught father."  To harass a distraught, and pregnant, mother, if you follow their line of argument.  Oh good, that'll help everybody involved, except that it won't.  How about instead of saying "think about the father, think about the baby!!11!!" it was "think about that pregnant person, that human being who is likely in a tricky spot and deserves some compassion and some respect."

In the specific instance linked we don't know a whole lot about the circumstances, and what we do is based on a rather subjective source.  But statistics tell us that at least half of all terminations each year are the result of contraceptive failure.  Chances are that the harasser in this situation had sex not intending to have a child as a result, and was possibly actively involved in undertaking contraceptive efforts to ensure that.  

Even if that weren't the case he doesn't have a right to force someone else to continue a pregnancy, give birth, become a parent or expand their family further.  The conversation seems to go "If you want to go through with this pregnancy then you can do it yourself" followed by "I would if I could, but I can't, so I won't, but you should".  No one should be able to force someone to continue a pregnancy they don't want to continue; no one.  The only person who can ultimately decide whether or not to continue a pregnancy is the person who is pregnant.  They can seek advice from anyone they like, but it should be their decision.

In a culture that shames women for having sex, having bodies, having abortions, using contraception, being sexy, not being sexy, and much much more, anti-abortion campaigners actively increase the possibility that pregnancy can cause distress and mental ill health.  By praying outside clinics, displaying anti-abortion signs, encouraging people opposed to abortion (either in general or in a specific case) to pressure others, Choose Life and their ilk are intimidating and harming people who are already vulnerable.  It's hateful and cruel and I wish they would stop.

Oxfam targets the top 10 food producers over women's rights

Behind the Brands – part of Oxfam’s GROW campaign to fix the broken food system – for the first time ranks the agricultural policies, public commitments and supply chain oversight of Nestlé, Coca Cola, Unilever, Pepsico, Mars, Mondelez, Associated British Foods (ABF), Danone, General Mills and Kellogg’s.  

Together these companies make $1 billion a day. Oxfam says they "are failing millions of people in developing countries who supply land, labour, water and commodities needed to make their products."

The Behind the Brands campaign will launch in more than 12 countries including New Zealand, the US, Mexico, China, Brazil and across Europe.

 Barry Coates, Executive Director of Oxfam New Zealand, said, “New Zealand consumers of these [companies’] products need assurances that the food and drink they buy is produced according to acceptable standards. This must include the impact on women, small farmers, workers, land, water and the climate. It is essential that there is transparency in company practice and policy set by these international brand leaders.”

While some of the “Big 10” have publicly committed to women’s rights, none have committed to eliminating discrimination against women throughout their supply chains. The campaign’s first public action will target Nestlé, Mondelez and Mars for their failure to address inequality faced by women who grow cocoa for their chocolate products. Oxfam is also releasing a brief with first-hand accounts of the inequality that women cocoa growers face. Oxfam is urging the three companies to do more to know and show how women are treated in their supply chains, create an action plan to address inequality for women in their supply chains and engage in advocacy to influence other powerful actors to do the same. Oxfam has written to the headquarters of these companies in Australasia urging them to respond constructively to this call. 

a culture of silence

i've been reading about jimmy savile, and the news that is now coming out regarding allegations of sexual assault [trigger warning for these links which contain descriptions of sexual assault and rape].  some of which he appears to have admitted to quite clearly in his own autobiography.  it seems that the police are now investigating, even though the alleged perpetrator is now dead, and i'm really hoping that the investigation will shine some light on the people who may have been complicit in allowing this offending to continue, even though they knew something criminal was going on.

people in a similar position to those who enabled the offending of jerry sandusky by their silence, or what should be called active covering up.  and people who are or were also offenders.  maybe i'm being overly optimistic, but i'm really hoping that this inquiry will lead to criminal prosecutions and some justice.

mostly because there is nothing worse than having this stuff hushed up.  there has been such a silence around sexual assault, particular of young people by much older adults, in a variety of social settings. it's time to pick apart the reasons for that silence, and to challenge each and every one of them.

complicity is a separate issue - those who actively provided sexual abuse victims, or provided places for the assault to happen.  they are committing a more direct crime.  i'm talking more about those who know or strongly suspect offending is taking place but do nothing.

one of the main reasons for silence is to protect an institution or organisation.  i have real difficulty with this one.  it seems to stem from "the greater good" type of argument, in that the institution/organisation is providing such a valuable service to so many people, and a few victims of sexual abuse should not be allowed to put that to risk.  especially since they could be making it all up anyway, right?  it's such a stupid way of thinking, because of the sheer lack of humanity, but also because of the lack of logic.  the organisation will be found out hiding or covering up sexual abuse - sooner or later - and then the fallout is going to be much worse than if they took the first case seriously, ensured that justice was done and put in place measures to ensure the safety of all people within the organisation.

another reason is that people don't want to be dragged into the situation, don't want to deal with the nastiness that comes with being a whistle-blower.  it's not just the victims who get blamed for doing [xyz] action that lead to the abuse.  other parties who try to something about it are just as much targets, criticised for trying to ruin someone's life, that someone who now gets defined as a pillar of the community or a nice young man whose shining bright future is about to be ruined, or a good person who works so hard for charity (this latter being all the more sickeningly ironic because it is often the charity work which allows the perpetrator to cherry-pick vulnerable victims, as it appears mr savile was able to do).

it's tough to be the one that calls out sexual abuse, especially when others in the family/ institution/ organisation gather around to protect the perpetrator and to isolate & shame the victim and those associated with her.  the consequences can range from isolation and ostracisation to outright bullying and threats of physical violence.


one of the reasons for silence, or for the cover-up, that i find most difficult to deal with is the "protection of the victim" defense.  i've seen this so very often, and it sickens me every time.  the argument goes like this:  if the offending is brought to light, the damage to the reputation and the very life of the victim will be so high that it's better to be kept quiet.  in some cultures, a young woman will be considered as tainted, she will never receive an offer of marriage, even though she is the one who has been offended against.  in pretty much all cultures, there will always be doubt that she shouldn't have allowed herself to be in a situation that such a thing could have happened to her.  she is culpable of the crime against her for any number of reasons, so best that it is all hushed up.  let the victim be sent away, or let the perpetrator be sent away, but let the reason never be known.

the thing is, with the latter defense, cultural norms and practices make the reasoning valid.  the appalling treatment of victims of sexual abuse means that it is much easier, much more the logical option to stay silent.  and when we have silence, we have conditions where sexual abuse and violence continue & even flourish.

perhaps this is why i'm hopeful about the police inquiry into the alleged crimes of jimmy savile.  so many women have come forward to speak out.  the culture within the BBC and other media organisations is coming out into the open.  i'm really hoping that there are some people who are feeling incredibly scared right now, because the crimes they have committed might come to light.  and maybe, just maybe, we'll see a culture change that makes life safer for a lot of people.

Is Judith Collins tough enough?

Back in April this year, the Law Commission consulted the New Zealand public on their review of alternative trial processes for sexual violence.  This was driven by years of awareness that court processes were not working well within the justice system, from those who support survivors, from legal academics who specialise in this area, and from survivors themselves.  The Law Commission proposals were supported by ALL of these groups and more - even high profile defence lawyer Greg King acknowledged the need for reform.

So courts are failing to deliver justice around sexual violence, there's a process in place to review it all, and the suggestions the Law Commission has come up with - after international research into alternatives - are roundly applauded.

The consultation received about 500 submissions, which reinforces how important this issue is to the New Zealand public.  The review began under Simon Power, who said in his valedictory speech that justice in cases of sexual violence was a debate parliament needed to have:

It's our job to tackle the tough issues, the issues the public pays us to front up to, and come to a view on.  There are many debates that Parliament does not want to have for fear of losing votes or not staying on message: abortion, adoption law, children’s rights, and sexual violence issues. I don't share this timid view.

Surely people don’t run for Parliament claiming they want to “make a difference”, only to vote for the status quo, otherwise presumably they would be so satisfied with the way the country was running that they wouldn’t feel the drive to seek public office in the first place.

We need politicians brave enough to "tackle the tough issue" of a failing justice system.  Is the current Justice Minister, Judith Collins too "timid" to follow up on the Law Commission review of alternative trial processes for sexual violence and see this lengthy, considered and well-informed process through?  Is this review going to be pushed into the "Too Hard" basket, waiting until we have a politician who will be brave enough?

Sexual violence is not a political issue in the conventional sense.  It's a community issue, affecting survivors and people who cause harm, their families, friends, lovers.  But we need political leadership to improve our failing justice response, to "make a difference."

If we care about survivors, we need to contact Judith Collins and ask her to be tough enough to push for the changes the justice system needs. 

We need to let her know we are waiting, or we may be stuck with a status quo everyone agrees is an abject failure. 

justice on display

i've been watching/reading about the murder trial of scott guy.  it's a bit difficult to avoid it, given that it's regularly one of the leading items of the tv & radio news, and covered on the first 3 pages of the newspapers.

i don't have much to say about the case itself - the court will deal with that.  but the thing that strikes me is how difficult it must be for that family to have all their personal histories displayed to the public, in such excrutiating detail and with so much prominence.  i feel especially for the immediate family of mr guy - his wife, parents, children, siblings.  they have had to suffer losing him from their lives in a most brutal way - something that no-one would choose to happen.  then they have to suffer again as their family is closely and publicly put under the spotlight.  it feels to me like another form of victimisation.

yes, i understand the need for having a public justice system.  i understand that the process of the courts needs to be closely scrutinised, and that justice has to be done & be seen to be done.  i agree these are important issues, and that closed justice systems are just rife for authoritarian abuse.

and yet.  it doesn't seem right that when some terrible thing is done to a much-loved member of your family, that becomes a reason for you to lose your right to privacy.  for the dead person to lose their right to privacy.  for people across the country - in their lounges and in their work places, amongst their own friends, families and colleagues - to be passing judgement on you and your affairs just because the media is giving them constant access to the details of your life, as if it was some kind of soap opera.

i keep thinking there must be a better way to do this, though i can't seem to think of one that both protects the integrity of the justice system while also protecting the integrity of victims and their families.  all i can do is watch the process and feel extremely uncomfortable about it.

barriers

i want to start by thanking LJ for her work on organising this week's series of posts on the law relating to sexual violence.  there has been so much work put into this area over the last few years, with submissions called for and a comprehensive report written.  we then had commitment from the outgoing justice minister, simon power, to push for some serious changes to the system.

it's such a pity that the new minister feels no such commitment.  there are so many people affected by sexual violence, and the majority of those don't even dare to approach the justice system.  it's not only because the justice system is so hostile and challenging - in terms of the financial and emotional costs involved - but also because of the wider societal context.  we live in a society that not only judges survivors but also seeks to put more blame on them than the actual perpetrators of the crime.

the social context also includes the fact that the majority of survivors have been violated by someone they know - often someone they know very well or are related to.  the mere fact of disclosing the crime will mean the destruction of some (or many) relationships, and quite often a backlash from those who are related to the perpetrator and who will also suffer emotional and financial loss if that person is properly held to account for their crime.

the survivor know that speaking up could cause a marriage break-up, could mean that children have to grow up without a parent in their home.  the perpetrator could be the major earner for the family, and the resultant loss income can have consequences for the quality of housing, health and education received by dependents.

not only that, but the survivor will have to deal with the grief of those closest to them - the natural grief that occurs when someone close to you has suffered from something that is devastating.  parents, for example, are likely to feel devastated knowing their child (no matter of what age) has been harmed.  on top of that, they are likely to feel guilt arising from the fact that they didn't do enough to protect that child - even though there is no way to keep anyone completely safe.  still, the mind tends towards the notion "if only i had done ..." or "if only i hadn't...", as if the perpetrator wasn't smart enough to work around your safeguards and to manipulate the situation to their advantage.

most survivors know full well the impact on friends and families, and on relationships.  they know they face a huge barrier in convincing others to believe them.  everything about the way society is set up - from our values to our social and institutional structures - make it harder to speak out and to seek justice.

the very least we can do is to change our justice system to make it less hostile, less threatening for survivors of sexual abuse and violence.

Head of the District Court

Judge Jan Doogue is the new head of the District Court. I've been following her career, which began in the Family Court, for a number of years.

Judge Doogue became a Family Court judge in 1994, just before the Domestic Violence Act 1995. Her legal decision-making almost immediately led to applause from Men's Rights groups, as she made it onto the "court decisions which help us" page at Menz. According to Menz, Judge Doogue:

ruled that the move by custodial mother from Auckland to Wellington, as primarily catering for the mother's, and not for the children's psychological needs. Doogue J emphasised that the children had already been through the trauma of parental separation from father.

No mention of why the mother had sole custody - so we don't know if domestic violence was a factor in this situation. And the disturbing implication that a mum wanting to live somewhere she has support is not important for her children.

In 2001, Judge Doogue released her thoughts on psychological abuse, in which she equates custodial parents (mostly mothers) who have "concerns" (unexplored) over access with non-custodial parents with "inter-parental conflict". At no point does she acknowledge that psychological abuse is one strand of domestic violence - underpinning physical violence, sexual violence, financial abuse and isolation tactics - according to the law in Aotearoa.

But Justice Doogue's most controversial foray was her address to a Child and Youth Law Conference in 2004, when she challenged the "social experimentation" of the Domestic Violence Act:

Research and experience supports the proposition that in New Zealand some children are being deprived of contact with a parent who has been alleged or judged to be violent when that is not in their best interests.

Considerable reliance has been placed on "Supervised Access" as being a panacea to balancing a child's rights to be safe and a non-custodial parent's right to access. This sometimes results in either inappropriate outcomes for children or unacceptable disenfranchisement for parents.

Judge Doogue went on to say:

At this point social science cannot support the assumption that any access, even supervised access with a parent who has been violent, is necessarily in a child's best interests. But nor does it support the assumption that access to a parent who has been violent is necessarily detrimental to a child's best interests.

This is back to the bad old days. Actually, there's a multiplicity of evidence that having contact with a violent parent, even if the violence is directed "only" towards adults, is bad for children. And still more evidence that courts too often do not appear to ensure the key determinant of access after a violent relationship ends is children's safety.

The Family Law Section of the NZ Law Society said the views expressed in this speech had no basis in fact at all. The available research showed the DVA was working quite nicely in court according to judges and lawyers, but noted some implementation concerns lingered in making sure it's protections were available:

"Overwhelmingly the people who were interviewed as key informants for this research and those who responded to the surveys, consider the Domestic Violence Act 1995 to be a good piece of legislation that achieves its objectives."

The media, however, were all over Justice Doogue's speech and Men's Righters loved it.

More recently, Judge Doogue's sentencing in the Tony Veitch case passed clear judgment on the man who pled guilty to breaking his partner's back in multiple places:

"You need to be held accountable for the harm done to the complainant, and to promote in you a sense of acknowledgement of that harm ... to denounce your conduct and deter others from similar offences."

"I dismiss any suggestion...that her behaviour that evening was provocative. Nothing she did justified what you did that night."

However, Judge Doogue's kindness in sentencing Mr Veitch to a bit of community work and some small change (for him) also came with the "mitigating circumstance" that this was a one off, unpremeditated assault. Seems odd when the original charges ran over three years of violent assaults, and these were only dropped at trial, as part of the deal the lawyers did to resolve this more quickly.

I've not followed Judge Doogue in the District Court, but I will be watching this space. She recently handed a non-custodial sentence to a 24 year old man who groomed a 15 year old on Facebook and then sexually abused her.

Final word from Chris Finlayson:

"Judge Doogue has the breadth of legal experience, skills and leadership abilities required for the Chief Judge position,” Mr Finlayson says. “I am confident that she will make a significant contribution in the office.”

lawyers and mental illness

i really wanted to share this piece about scrutiny of mental illness in the australian legal profession. i like it so much that i want to just reproduce the whole thing here, but that would be rude. so here's an excerpt but please do read the whole thing over there:

Two NSW magistrates have had to front up before the Parliament and explain to a bunch of politicians why their mental illness should not render them unfit to perform their duties. One wonders how many of the honourable members listening have (or should have) appointments with psychiatrists pencilled in their diaries.

[...]

With respect, those who judge our judges and lawyers should understand that law is one of those professions very conducive to depression in its practitioners. Perhaps a good way to describe a lawyer’s job is to always assume the worst scenarios are going to happen and then protect his or her client from each of them. The best lawyers are almost always the ultimate pessimists. Too much positive thinking is dangerous in the legal game.

Life is especially tough for many small operators whose sources of work are drying out or legislated out of existence. These are often the lawyers prepared to do low-paying legal aid work for average punters. These are the lawyers who would struggle to pay their own hourly rate let alone the fees of the average private psychiatrist.

As magistrate Maloney told the NSW Parliament: “Interestingly, researchers have found that 40% of law students, 20% of barristers and 33% of solicitors have a mental illness. It is from this demographic that judicial officers are drawn. In the past 12 months three barristers have sadly taken their own lives. In recent years, two judges.”

it appals me that lawyers & judges would have to prove a lack of depression or other mental illness. it's hugely discriminatory as well as self-defeating.

SlutWalk letter to ed in Herald today

Below is a letter to the editor in the Herald today, from Leonie Morris of the Auckland Women's Centre, who is also involved with Feminist Action. 

I'm putting it up because I think it's quite useful to read in the context of some of the discussion around SlutWalk.  I've seen stuff that has focused on the word slut and whether or not that should be used, reclaimed, or not.  Leonie's letter imho very effectively shifts the discussion from acknowledging that relatively minor issue to the bigger one of getting across what SlutWalk is about, rather than the language used to express it; i.e. No one ever asks for rape. 

New clothes
The Perspectives article headlined "Sex and feminists' new clothes" was accurate.  Regrettably, women in sexually provocative clothes are likely to be objectified by men.

On Auckland's SlutWalk on June 25, some women will choose to wer sexually provocative clothes and others will not, but our nited message is against the rape myth that what women wear can be an invitation to rape.

Many rape myths are prevalent in New Zealand, and busting them is critical as a rape prevention measure and also so juries in rape trials are no longer influenced by these misogynistic and deep-rooted myths.  "She invite him home", "she was walking in town late at night," "she had been drinking", therefore "she asked for it".

"Only yes means yes" is a slogan favoured by today's feminists emphasising the difficulties around consent to sex and the importance of both parties being clear about their intentions and needs.

SlutWalks from Toronto to Birmingham to Auckland are demanding we stop blaming rape victims and adopt the simple truth - "Men can stop rape". 

Please note, the headline is picked by the Herald. 

the cost of privacy

there's been a lot of news lately about the use of twitter to disclose information suppressed by the courts, brought to our attention because of a british football player. in all the discussion about loss of privacy, and the inability of law to keep up with technology, the focus tends to be on defendants, and very little on their victims.

one of the things we know about twitter is that it is a power tool for harassment of women who dare to file complaints of sexual assault. we've had the very famous case of julian assange, and the use of twitter to disclose the identity of the swedish women, who were then subject to threats and harassment.

even for less high-profile cases, victims of crime are equally at risk if their own name or the name of the accused/perpetrator is released. given the culture into which the names are released, one which blames and attacks victims & makes their lives extremely difficult (to the extent of being unable to work, in the case of the dominic strauss-kahn victim), it's yet another massive barrier that prevents reporting of rape and sexual violation.

there are those who think privacy is a waste of time, and not a realistic objective. i doubt those people realise the extent to which victims of crimes can and do suffer when privacy is breached. while the law in this area is being reviewed, ultimately i suspect that it will be the economics of the situation that will determine outcomes. it is costly and time-consuming to go after thousands of people on twitter or facebook, and unlikely to be practical.

this is not good news and will do nothing for the reporting rates of sexual abuse and rape which are already spectacularly low.

Asking for it

Found via Twitter

Have I mentioned recently how much I heart Judy Horacek?  This is apparently from 1997.

the practicalities of justice

last year i wrote a post on my own blog about how thankful i was in not having to interact with the justice system. i've managed to escape any serious involvement thus far, and given the interactions i have had were quite stressful, i can only imagine how difficult it is for people who are fully embroiled in this kind of thing.

possibly it's because i'm too soft-hearted, too much aware of social justice issues and that into punitive justice measures. but i find a decision to press charges to be a most difficult one. it can have such a powerful impact on someone's life: on their ability to earn a living, on their social standing and self-worth. it impacts others in the immediate family, not only in practical terms (eg losing a breadwinner) but in emotional terms given the shame and embarassment attached to such an event.

i don't believe those impacts are any greater for someone who is in a higher socio-economic class. i think the poorest of us can feel the same level of shame and embarassment as the richest, and the richest of us can be as immune to any kind of remorse as the poorest. i do think that poverty can cause a special kind of desperation that causes an increase in criminal action - hence the increase in crime when the unemployment rate rises.

i've never had to serve on a jury, but if i did, i know that i'd find it extremely difficult to come to a guilty verdict. even when the evidence is clear, and there is no doubt about motive & intention to harm. i would do it (ie vote for a guilty verdict) but i would hate to do it, knowing what i know about prisons, about the difficulties of families being broken up and innocent people suffering the consequences.

i do understand the need for justice and i don't deny the fact that people must be held accountable for their actions. i know that it would be extremely difficult for society to function without a justice system. it's just the practicalities of administering justice: i find it extremely hard to do and i hate the feeling of being responsible for destroying someone else's life. and yes, i know that the person who committed the crime is actually the one responsible for destroying their own life through their own actions. but being even the slightest bit involved in delivering that destruction, being a part of the process that sees a person descend into hopelessness and helplessness, is pretty difficult.

the reason we do it is, of course, for the victims of crime, and further potential victims if the offender isn't stopped. at least that's the only reason i would choose to put anyone through the grinder that is our justice system. i don't see that creating more misery will wipe out the misery that has already been caused by the crime.

i'd possibly feel differently if a criminal action had affected me personally - perhaps that primal need for vengeance would be much stronger than i imagine. i sincerely hope i never have to find out.

simon power retires

so simon power is going to retire in november. as minister of justice, he was working his way through changes to the justice sytem to improve the conviction rates for perpretrators of sexual assault and abuse. i don't know that he was working on it as any kind of priority, because my recollection is that the next report is to come out in december this year. but at least he was working on it and taking the issues seriously.

who in this government will do that now? it won't be the minister of women's affairs, since we've seen that minister stay silent on crucial issues that have had a negative impact on the lives of many women. haven't heard too much out of the new minister, though i am going to a meeting where she is in attendance in less than half an hour. i'm very interested in what she has to say.

in any case, the loss of simon power is not a good thing, as i don't believe there is any other person in this government who has the mana and courage to make the changes that are needed.

Desperately seeking justice

A reader emailed me today with a couple of snaps of some graffiti outside the Auckland High Court:

 Below is a close-up so you can read the words*:

Regardless of the means used to make this point, it is very salient.

*  UPDATE:  The original photo I was sent had 1.3%, I've now been sent one with the correct statistic of 13%.  Thanks very much to the reader who sent it on earlier today, the delay in correcting it was mine.

it's more than unfortunate, it's criminal

i'm glad this sort of thing has led to a conviction, though i would have thought it deserved a bigger penalty:

The man, who has permanent name suppression, used a laptop webcam and cellphone camera to make intimate recordings of his wife.

His antics ended only when his wife found a video camera, hidden under a towel, filming her in the bath.

The 39-year-old was ordered to pay $200 reparation when he appeared for sentencing in the Hamilton District Court yesterday.

Judge Peter Spiller said the facts of the case were "very unfortunate" and declined an application to discharge the man without conviction on the charges of making and possessing an intimate visual recording.

this man got permanent name suppression, though it's hard to argue against that when making his name public would also result in unfair publicity for the woman who was filmed without consent. also, the convicted man put up one of the weakest defences i've seen, claiming that his actions would somehow help a troubled marriage. oh yes, what a way to win your wife's trust.

still, on the positive side, a lack of victim blaming and a recognition that this kind of action is abusive and criminal.

"technology can't be used in this way"

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

on the impact of victim impact statements

if you haven't already, please read this. i'd suggest that you read the preceding post & comments before you come to it. i found that i had agreed with mr edward's position in the first post, that sentencing should not be impacted by the wishes of the victim, as this creates an unfair situation. having read the second post, i retain that view. but what mr woods has to say is so extremely powerful, and deserves a much wider hearing. it's not often we get to hear such an in-depth and moving alternative to the narratives promoted by the sensible sentencing trust - one that is honest and thoughtful.

i can imagine how difficult it must have been for mr woods to put down his thoughts in this way, and agree to them being shared. keeping that in mind, i'm also not allowing comments here. i'd rather people read mr wood's words & reflected on them.

more on the trial of greg meads

i was going to write a piece on the grant meads case, but deborah beat me to it. however, there are a couple of aspects of the case that i want to talk about, other than the excellent point she has raised.

the main defence in this case was that mr meads didn't mean to pull the trigger, even though he took a loaded shotgun with him & pointed it at her, with the safety catch off. i'm glad that the jury had no trouble dismissing that defence.

what concerned me more, though, is that the defence presented this couple as being happily married. evidence was provided to this effect, in the form of cards that were exchanged & other statements. given that the evidence he had abused her previously was withheld from the court (and i have no problem with that), i don't see how the defence could introduce evidence trying to prove they had a happy marriage. especially when 1) this was known to be false and 2) the prosecution would be unable to rebut it because they couldn't introduce evidence of the abuse.

i'm not a lawyer, so it's quite possible i'm missing something important. i accept that people have the right to a full defence, and the right to use any defence that is legally available to them. but surely there must be some limit on a defence that is clearly known to be false, on the basis that the jury are being misled? i don't know, it just doesn't seem right to me.

nor does it seem right that the accused could give interviews to the media, presenting himself as a helpless victim of circumstances. the sunday star times article is here, and reaction to it is here. why exactly is this allowed to happen, when the case hasn't even come to trial yet? even if he was only an accused person at that stage who might have been innocent, it's just wrong.

Hoopla! Abortion protest and court case round-up

As Maia posted on the weekend, today was the day anti-abortion group Right To Life was back in court trying to restrict abortion access by suing the Abortion Supervisory Committee.

Maia and others, notably the Vic Action for Abortion Right's group, were involved in organising a protest outside the Court of Appeal in Wellington to show support for a woman's right to choose and law reform that heads in that direction;  No More Jumping Through Hoops.

Here's a round-up of coverage of the court hearing and the protest, which I'll add to as I get a chance (kindly help me out by posting relevant links in comments, ta!):

• Dominion Post article - Abortion rally outside court - with a great pic of the demonstration
• Speech to the rally by Rebecca from Mothers For Choice - sample quote:  "We have a very strong message for the Right to Life brigade – not only do you not own women’s bodies, you don’t own families."
• ALRANZ media statement on the court case - Anti-Abortion Case Reflects Political Apathy Over Women's Rights - including:  "Until Parliament acts to enshrine women’s reproductive rights in law, this kind of costly legal harassment will continue, [Dame Margaret Sparrow] said."
• Stuff article on the court hearing - Hearing to review abortion ruling 
• Anti-abortion Group Is Not Angry With You, Just Very Very Disappointed - Right To Life put out an odd media statement that doesn't really look like a media statement, and reckon it's inappropriate to protest outside the court.  Also, did you know that everytime you wear red you are endorsing a culture of death? 
• Background on the court case, which has been going on for a long time now, can be found at the ALRANZ site.

Great work by the organisers, and big ups to those who attended/and.or showed their support for the event.

Comment direction:  Kindly take any arguments about the morality of abortion to the whole page we have set up especially for debating that topic.  Comments on this post should focus on the court case and/or the protest.