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.”

Three Strikes, you're out NZ Police

Trigger warning:  Explicit discussion of incompetent sexual violence investigations underpinned by rape culture.  Please be careful reading.

The IPCA report into the Roast Busters case is so bad the Police have issued a public apology.  It details systemic problems with how sexual violence was investigated throughout the Police hierarchy.  The report itself points out the lack of shift from two previous reviews of Police practice in this area:

It is disturbing that several themes identified as a result of the Authority’s child abuse inquiry (such as deficiencies in investigative practices, file recording, collaboration with CYF, and case supervision) have, again, been highlighted in the Authority’s current investigation.

IPCA identified seven cases involving the same young men that were brought to Police attention between February 2011 and April 2013.  One case involved multiple alleged sexual assaults. 

Deficiencies in Investigative Practices
NZ Police chose to stop investigating these cases when victims did not wish to proceed.  The law is clear on this - victim's co-operation is helpful but not required.  NZ Police failed to:

• either check whether the named young men were known to Police, or when they did recognise this, failed to consider whether there was a pattern of behaviour which was dangerous to the public.  The IPCA Report calls this "the most significant failing identified in the Authority’s investigation."
• obtain statements from witnesses
• attempt to speak to or take statements from all of the young men involved in the incident
• make any enquiries that might have corroborated or refuted any inconsistencies between accounts
• adequately consider the evidence in relation to consent issues 
• secure all available evidence, such as CCTV footage, cellular telephone data, and photographic and video images
• ensure investigations were completed in a timely way
• ensure officers interviewing witnesses knew case details
  
  

Deficiencies in File Recording
This comes up first in the Background section.  NZ Police told the IPCA that four cases involving the Roast Busters young men had been reported to them.  Upon file review, the IPCA in fact found seven. 

In addition, NZ Police failed to:

• accurately record names or birth dates of the young people concerned, in particular the perpetrators.  Some cases did not bother to record the young men's names at all; others missed out some young men.
• submit a final report at all in one case 
• submit accurate final reports in other cases.  This included failing to mention victims providing evidence, incorrectly stating victims had been in contact with CYF, incorrectly stating that victims had described activities as consensual
• remove their own biases - one case report included musings from the officer about the "mindset" of the victim which the IPCA describes as "tenuous and unfounded" (we can only guess at which delightful rape myth that might refer to)
• failure to identify corroborating evidence - on one occasion by three witnesses - which might assist with prosecution
  
  

Deficiencies in Collaboration 
NZ Police failed to:

• refer the young men to CYF, in line with protocols between NZ Police and CYF.  Had they done so, access to offender treatment could have been offered as well as other interventions.  Instead this happened just once, but the young man did not turn up to his appointment.
• link in with Youth Aid or the schools concerned at all
• contact the parents of the young men in person.  In just one case, letters were sent to the young men's parents.  The letters didn't reference other cases and did not mention offender treatment, merely informing the parents Police were taking no action on a complaint they'd received.
  
  

Deficiencies in Case Supervision
The report identifies one officer as providing inadequate supervision for his cases, including failing to identify the problems named above.

Lack of understanding of the law
The law regarding consent and alcohol in NZ states: "A person does not consent to sexual activity if the activity occurs while he or she is so affected by alcohol or some other drug that he or she cannot consent or refuse to consent to the activity."

I'm going to just quote the report's findings on this one: 

In four of the cases, alcohol was known by investigating officers to have had an influence on the behaviour of the young women involved. In one case, the young woman passed out and awoke to find one of the young men on top of her. In another case, the young woman had no recollection of the incident, and was told a few hours later by one of the young men that “you were roasted and then passed out.” Material on these Police files reveals that the reported level of intoxication and the state of consciousness of the young women due to their alcohol consumption, and how this impacted on their capacity to consent, was an issue that was never adequately followed up by the officers. In some instances, it is apparent from the Authority’s interviews with the officers and from the files that it was not even considered.

The law regarding age of consent in NZ states that someone cannot give consent if they are under 16.  Sometimes this is not prosecuted, generally if both people involved in sexual contact are under 16 and it's not seen in the public interest.

The report concludes that wasn't the case for the Roast Busters incidents, as the levels of intoxication involved, the fact some of the young women were three years younger than the perpetrators, and the fact there were multiple perpetrators involved all indicate there should have been public interest in prosecution.
____________________________________________________________________________
 
This is the stuff of nightmares.  It's every bit as bad as we thought, way back in November 2013, when there were street protests and demonstrations and everyone in New Zealand was talking about what consent means and whether "boys will be boys" is an acceptable excuse for rape.  When three independent reports in a row detail the same failings, it's not a few bad apples, it's a rotten system.  Three strikes, you're out NZ Police.

The Police need reform, they need improvements in sexual violence practice to be measured and reported on, they need more training.  They need to take sanctions against officers who treat sexual violence so cavalierly - if they want this to stop being a systemic problem.  Top quality investigation of sexual violence cases need to be a key performance indicator at a District level, so the hierarchy take it seriously.  Until their officers actually understand and implement the law, they should be reporting on their improvements to an impartial group which has the power to hire and fire. 

One final note from me.  This report says that the Police treated victims courteously and were motivated to act in their best interests, based on talking to the Police and reviewing documentation.  The IPCA did not interview one victim, and while I can understand why there may well be no victims who would want to go anywhere near the Police again, this seems like a major oversight.  I have no confidence that this incompetent a Police service is routinely treating victims well.  I have no doubts some individual Police officers will be - and I'm sure this report is heartbreaking for the many NZ Police who want to prosecute sexual offenders appropriately - but the system needs correcting.  Watch this space.

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.

Rape Culture: We're soaking in it

NB:  These points may already have been made, and made well, elsewhere. I've been largely keeping away from the Roast Busters stuff as I have other stuff going on currently that leaves me in a bad place to be dealing with that.  Hopefully this adds to the discussion, and the progress we MUST make, rather than just being a repetition.  Strong content warning for sexual violence.

Roast Busters is not new.  It is not some heinous development in human history.  Human history IS Rape Culture.  Rape Culture is a norm of centuries' duration we are trying to change, to overcome.  Well some of us are, anyway.

Rape Culture seems particularly bad right now because you are all seeing it.  It was there all along, so saturating us that it is the air we breathe.

Rape Culture is a society where the first things many people will consider when they hear of a rape include role of alcohol consumed by victim, role of clothes worn by victim, lack of parental supervision of victim,
instead of the reprehensible actions of the rapist.

Rape Culture is a society where victim blaming happens constantly.  Where female friends of the rapists speak out in the media to deny the accusations on their behalf.  Where those female friends may have been raped too, in the same circumstances as those they deny, and they can't face that they were raped too, because that is just too hard to deal with.*

Rape Culture is a society where a public health promotion agency deliberately uses fear of rape to scare women into drinking less alcohol, in the process promulgating a number of really really super unhelpful myths about rape and passing them off as truth.

Most women (and I suspect many men) have rape stories; their own, or those of others who have shared with them, things they have seen, things they themselves have done.  For me they are the stories of others, or near misses, but the chance that I will be raped at some point in my life is really very high - 1 in 4 women and girls in New Zealand have had that awful dehumanising experience.  I read once that 1 in 5 New Zealanders have asthma.  Amongst women being a victim of rape is more common than being asthmatic.

And we don't need more research actually.  There is a whole lot.  I'm not well placed to link, but Scube did, and I'm sure others have heaps of good links they can provide in comments.

What we need is more action.  More action by the State.  NGOs, individuals, groups formal and informal all do what they can, but they do not having the resources, the status or the longevity of central government.  We know enough to act; act effectively, efficiently and make a real difference.  Yet we don't.

We don't when we are the Government.  We don't when we are the Police.  We don't when we are people of high profile with significant media platforms.  Denial is a way of coping, I guess, because otherwise we have to accept that what we did to others could have been rape, what others did to us was rape, what we didn't stop happening to someone we love was rape.  What we allow and even encourage is Rape Culture.

We're soaking in Rape Culture, and it makes it hard to see.  When these moments come we must examine our complicity while we still can, so that once this case has faded we can still see the edges of our own enabling, and stop.



*  I have seen this happen first hand, and have no knowledge that this is at all the case in the Roast Busters situation.

The cost

It is the 8th of November 2007 at 3.30pm, we are in the park next to Symonds St cemetery. We are waiting. The solicitor general is going to announce whether the crown is going to persue terrorism charges against our friends. We had followed them to Auckland and now we are waiting until 4pm. A few days earlier, I had decided that we are going to win, and I am holding on to my own conviction as a talisman.

Some people are going to get snacks - I find some coins and ask for Whittakers Dark Almond Chocolate. "And if you don't find it they won't get bail."

"Don't say that!" Risks are not acceptable.

They come back with chocolate, but not Dark Almond. What have I done? Someone else there digs to the bottom of her bag and finds a few almonds and I eat the almonds and the chocolate together - that will have to do.

At 4.01 the solicitor general announces that the there will be no terrorism charges.

*********

I was in my office of the 29th of August 2011 - engaging in magical thinking. I had almonds and dark chocolate and ate them together. The Supere Court was going to deliver the most important legal decision in the case since the solicitor general decided not to press terrorism charges sometime that week. I decided that they were going to win. I couldn't think of anything else to do.

The judgement came down about midday Friday.  It wasn't as clear as the decision in the park, although it was definitely good news.  I tried to guess what it meant, my mind racing through what I knew about the case and the law.

*********

Today the crown dropped the charges against all but four of the defendants (obviously there is more to say - but there a quite a few suppression orders in play at this point).

********

18 people were arrested during the raids on October 15th 2007. Another 4 were arrested in the first half of 2008.

2 had their charges dealt with reasonably quickly in 2007.

1 pled guilty and got discharged without conviction in 2008.

1 had his case thrown out at the depositions hearing in 2008.

1 died in 2011.

13 have had their charges dropped today.

4 still face charges under the Arms Act and of "being part of an organised criminal group"

*********

I have never been able to take the charge of "being part of organised criminal group" seriously.  I think it's the word organised.  That and the fact that I've read the legislation and know enough about the crown case to see a non-overlap.  It is appalling that these ridiculous charges mean that those four people, and those around them, will have to continue to pay the costs of being a defendant.

*********

The 14 people who have had their charges dropped spent a combined 9 months in jail and 50 years on bail.

As part of their bail conditions they have had to report to a police station 1,650 times

They have had to travel more than 15,000 km to meet those bail conditions.

Those living out of Auckland had to travel a total of 7,500 kms to get to Auckland for each court hearing.

They owe millions of dollars in legal aid - which they will have to repay with liens against houses and orders against wages.

And that's not even really it.  The most important costs aren't so easily quantifiable. Stress demands compound interest.  The raids and charges did not just effect 22 people - hundreds were in houses, cars or school buses that were searched - and more had to sit while people they loved were locked-up, and face the horrific threat of it happening again.

So many people, including me, have stress fractures that will not heal. The cost was on bodies, on minds, on relationships and it cannot be undone.

Tuhoe Lambert did not live to see these charges dropped.

Rage: A review

I was not in New Zealand in 1981, although it may have played a role in my parents deciding to move here; the protests against the tour were a large part of what they knew about NZ before coming. I remember going on the protests later in the 1980s (we got to go to McDonalds after one). Apartheid was the second political issue I understood when I was a girl (the first was anti-nuclear).

I was certainly chanting a long while watching Rage.

In many ways it was a very good movie. I was particularly impressed with the way archival footage of the key moments was edited with fictional material. The acting was strong. And even though I spent most of the first twenty minutes asking: "Where is that? It is not Victoria University" there were some nice period moments.

The politics of the movie were reasonably clear. Although I could have done without a wise old African man telling a young Maori women how awesome New Zealand white people are.

The other political message was about the police - and the movie quite deliberately presented the police as stuck in the middle. We saw the police through the eyes of a young Maori female recruit who faced no racism or sexism from her co-workers. We didn't see the red squad. The police came and protected a house full of protesters in Hamilton. That is not a complete picture of the role of the police in '81 - it's a misleadingly limited one.

Leaving aside that political difference - my main objection was the sheer inanity of the 'plot'. Pro-tip if you're writing "falling in love wasn't part of the plan." then you may not be conceiving your characters as individuals with interesting and complex inner lives and well developed relationships.

It was neither the love story or the dead mother that bothered me per se; it was the way those two stories played out in the most predictable, unoriginal, ridiculously timed kind of a way. There was nothing specific or real about those stories that couldn't have come from "So I see you're writing a star-crossed lovers" cheat-sheet.

On top of that it meant we saw the anti-tour protests through a pakeha perspective.* You could tell an interesting story of a young Maori woman working as an undercover police officer, and the way she navigated that life. But instead of it being about her life and her world and what she saw - her story revolved around who she was sleeping with.

I think what bothered me most about the film was the idea that the events of 1981 and the many different realities those involved in them weren't interesting or dramatic enough in themselves to make a tele-movie. There are so many vivid interesting real stories that could be told about an incredible, stressful, intense time. Those stories could also have involved sex, and death and love and joy. Why rehash inanities rather than find something interesting and specific?

* And don't think I didn't notice that the only moment that it passed the Bechdel test was when the Donna Awatere character criticises the under-cover police officer. To have a pakeha man (who is supposedly deeply involved with the tour and reasonably politically aware) come in and rescue her was pretty telling about where the film-makers stood.

Another police officer on another sexual assault charge

Same old, same old, really. The details are here (NB: may be triggering): Cop on sexual assault charges.

There's a twist in this story.

His occupation was left off his charge sheets in what police called an administrative error.

Riiiiigghhttt.

And I've got a lovely bridge to sell to you.

Backhanded police defence of cougar ad?

In this morning's Sunday Star-Times there's a report about the notorious "cougar" police recruiting ad (see Maia's post on 6 February). Headline: "Police 'cougar' ad gets the recruits". First sentence: "A sexist police recruitment advertisement which was quickly axed has been wildly successful - attracting record numbers of potential recruits." Notice the addition of the word "potential" - not quite the same thing as actual recruits.

Near the end of the report it turns out that this "success" claim is based on a briefing from police public affairs general manager Michael Player to Judith Collins.

There are no details about how many actual recruits, let alone suitable recruits, the police got as a result. Instead the claim seems to be based solely on the fact that in the week before the ad was dropped, the recruiting site received "the largest single number of weekly hits ever".

Nowhere does this news report explain that police were pushed into dropping the ad after a flood of public protests about it. Nor does it mention that the increase in hits was at least as likely to have come from people having a look to see what the protest was about as from a sudden surge in eager potential recruits.

The minister for police and upholding rape culture

From the Herald (via No Right Turn):

Police Minister Judith Collins said the actions of looters was akin to "people who rob the dead".*

She expected to see the judiciary throw the book at looters.

"I hope they go to jail for a long time - with a cellmate."

Judith Collins introduced widespread double-bunking; she championed it in the media. When people who had actually done research suggested that it would lead to more prison rape and violence, she shrugged those statements off.

And now she's telling us that, for her, abuse and violence between inmates is a feature of double-bunking, not a bug. She is not explicit, but we live in a culture where threats of rape in prison are common enough that she doesn't need to finish the thought by telling us that the cellmate is large and called Bubba. By signalling that she thinks looters should be subject to rape and violence from their cell mates, she has acknowledged that her policy of introducing cellmates is responsible for increased rape and violence.

************

One of the most fundamental ideas of rape culture is that sometimes consent doesn't matter. And if you suggest that, about anyone, ever, then you are legitimising it as an area of contention and debate,

So when the Police Minister implies that looters should be raped, the ideas she's promoting about prison are appalling, but they don't just affect prisoners. What she says is part of the same culture that tells us not to drink, to go out at night, to dress that way. It's the same culture that says if we're in a relationship with him, or drunk, or flirted, or were in a war zone, or were asleep, or had sex with other people then our consent doesn't matter. It's the same culture that has been reinforced in every rape case I've ever written about. When someone ignores our consent and violates, it's that same culture which will find a reason, any reason, that we caused it and deserved it.

We can't dismiss comments about prison rape as somehow being different from other comments about rape. Like prison, prison rape is part of society, not removed from it.

* Just as a note - I haven't written anything about the earthquake. I try not to write on my blog without a reason - either because I've got something to say, or because there's something that I think should be heard, otherwise I try to stay silent. My silence should not be read as indifference.

Topping off my week of feminist rage

The existence of the New Zealand police taps pretty much into the core of my rage at the best of times. And their recruitment campaigns are always appalling. There was one that was all about how boring and stupid teaching was. And then there was this one:

Girl germs are super catching - and they don't impress his manly bbq-ing friends - obviously the only solution is his own baton.* That whole series of ads was basically "work that is coded feminine is gross and not suitable for men."

But their latest set of ads are about communicating a slightly different message:



Yes, Clint Rickards, Brad Shipton, Bob Schollum, and many other men who have never been publicly named did like them young. Police rapists don't rape indiscriminately; they focus on powerless women.

The message of the latest campaign is clear: "We're over even pretending to care about police officers who rape. Instead we can go back to what we do best. We've even got a guy at the training college to make sure everyone understands the 'bros before hos' message"

Ideologically Impure (who gets credit for the picture) and Luddite Journo are much more coherent than me on these posters. I don't think I've got anymore words for my anger at the New Zealand police force, at least not at the moment. So consider this a scream at the end of my week of feminist rage.

* This definately makes me think of the Simpsons: "Dude you kissed a girl that's so gay".

Safer Communities Together

Years ago, I heard a story.

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

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

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

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

Now he is in charge of training new police officers.

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

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

on not putting your money where your mouth is

i'm busy at work so don't have time to cover this issue properly, but here is gordon campbell on the post on the government's decision to not pay compensation to women who were raped & abused by police officers:

Once again, the Key government has shown it doesn’t give a stuff about issues that primarily affect women. Cabinet has rejected an official recommendation to compensate the victims of a rape culture that existed within the Police It has also shown no interest in taking action to address gender pay inequities. In addition, its welfare working group has stigmatized women on the DPB despite the fact that most women are on this benefit for a relatively short time....

To many though, the decision to reject the rape compensation will be particularly galling. Barely a fortnight after Police Minister Judith Collins blamed the media for the growing lack of respect for the Police among the public, Cabinet has decided to abandon a group of vulnerable women that Police officers had preyed upon. According to Attorney- General Finlayson, there is no legal basis for such a payment. Well, duh. That’s why the forum set up by the Clark government to liaise with the victims had recommended to government that an ‘ex gratia’ payment should be made, given the circumstances. That’s what ex gratia payments are. They are made when no official avenue exists to address a clear moral obligation.

please do go and read the whole thing. and also this post at the standard, especially comments relating to hon mr finlayson's "floodgates" response. i can't even begin to express how sickening this decision is. it means a lack of any kind of justice for victims or responsibility by the crown. after all that these women have suffered, and the bravery of engaging in this process, it's a very cruel result.

moreover, this is a government that has spewed out so many words about the importance of victims rights, yet when the chance comes to do something simple and concrete, they don't want to spend the money.

follow up

following up on this post i did last week about police advice to south asians to avoid having flags outside their homes etc, my local ethnic liaison officer has continued to be in contact with me. he has provided me with the press release which i've copied in full below. make of it what you will. i'm not sure if i'll follow up any further with this - feeling a little low on energy just now.

Counties-Manukau District Police: South-East Asian Advisory Board

Media Release: Positive advice misinterpreted

A discussion took place in the South East Asian Advisory Board meeting on disproportionate number of South Asian/Indian houses being burgled.

Amongst the causes identified as contributing to this spate of burglaries was the common perception that South Asians/Indians keep cash and jewelry at home; that South Asians/Indians are lax in securing their homes against burglary, hence easy prey.

During the discussion on what steps need to be taken to discourage targeting South Asian/Indian homes it was suggested that the religio-cultural flags that a section of Indo-Fijians flies in their lawns, may be announcing to the burglars that this house has money and jewelry, and the community may be asked to look at the option of not flying these flags so that the burglars do not have an easy identification of potential targets.

The statement around Indian festivals also sought to make the point that during celebrations, burglars may target Indian homes under the impression that people will be at advertised celebrations.

It was never the intention of the advisory issued by South East Asian Liaison Officer, Gurpreet Arora, to tell people what they can and cannot do. Intention was simply to identify some steps that people and communities can take to make their homes less vulnerable to burglaries.
It, of course, follows that if the South Asians/Indians start moving their cash and jewelry to bank vaults or in safes at home or put security alarms at home, burglars will gradually move away from these easy targets.

South East Asian Advisory Board feels that the language used in the advisory may have contributed to mis-interpretation of the suggestions, but the intention behind the advisory must be lauded by all as it only seeks to insulate South Asian/Indian communities against burglars.

The Board also believes that even though much of the discussion is negatively tinged, the advisory has been able to make people look at this issue and seek solutions to mitigate this problem, as putting an end to all burglaries may never be possible.

The Board hopes that the public discussion will now move to discussing concrete steps that people can take to make their homes less vulnerable to burglaries.

On behalf of Counties-Manukau District Police's South-East Asian Advisory Board

Board members: Verpal Singh, Ranjna Patel, Liaqat Waraich, Shabbir Wasiuallah, Venkat Raman, Manjula Walgampola and Moses Singh.

20/20 story on domestic violence tonight

Tonight (Thursday) at 9.30pm on TV2 (straight after Go Girls) 20/20's feature story is about domestic violence, here's the blurb:

Close to home
They're so common that sometimes they don't even hit the headlines, but why is murdering a loved one simply seen as a fact of life in New Zealand? It sounds incredible that in this country, you're actually safer on the street than you are in your own home. But last year 41 New Zealanders were killed by a member of their own family - and for every Kiwi who dies hundreds more are physically, sexually and emotionally abused.

In an extraordinary first 20/20's Sonya Wilson went out on patrol with the cops trying to keep the peace in our homes - and brings you the incredible stories of the ordinary horror going on in your street every night. And the family of a woman killed by her former partner in an attack a judge labelled one of this country's worst homicides speak out with a story they say that we all need to hear.

Thanks to Leonie at the Auckland Women's Centre for the tip off.

try not to look asian

how's this for victim blaming:

Auckland police are warning Asian families to keep a low profile to avoid becoming the target of burglaries.

Southeast Asian liaison officer Constable Gurpreet Arora said Asian families should take down national flags from their homes and keep religious festivals low-key.

The advice was mainly for Auckland families, based on his experience, but could be extended to all Asian families in New Zealand, he said.

"Burglars are very well aware of the fact that South Asian communities tend to keep considerable amounts of cash and jewellery at home."

when i first read this, i have to say it made me really angry. that the police response to reducing crime would be telling ethnic minorities to hide their identities is indeed a new low. that the statement is made by a south asian member of the force shows that this approach to crime-busting is more about police culture than about inter-cultural awareness.

i can appreciate that police are looking at ways to keep people safe. but that surely shouldn't involve asking people to hide their identities? ugh. i'm glad i'm not the only one who sees it this way. not sure that this link will work for most of you, but here are excerpts from an article on the stuff website:

New Zealand Indian Central Association president Prithipal Singh said the advice was well meaning but unfair.

‘‘I think we are already keeping a low profile. It’s unfair to ask us to do any more,’’ he said.

New Zealand Chinese Association national president Steven Young said the police request was ‘‘a passive response’’ to crime.

‘‘It’s like they are hoping for us to keep a low profile, so that we’ll be less trouble for them.’’
Cultures should not be asked to become ‘‘invisible’’, Mr Young said.

‘‘You need to acknowledge your cultural awareness; if you don’t you lose your status, your awareness, you become more marginalised.’’

Chinese academic Dr Hongzhi Gao said ... rather than being told to ‘‘tone things down’’ by police, Asians should be given advice about how to seek legal help in New Zealand...

needless to say, i've raised this issue with our local police ethnic liaison officer who was really supportive and agreed that the comments were inappropriate. let's hope he and others in the police force will be able to push for a change from within.

He's still a police officer

It never ends:

The woman, whose name is suppressed, argued in a civil case that she had felt obliged to fulfil Mr Govers' sexual requests because of his position.

The woman had helped police spy on a methamphetamine ring in 2005. Shortly afterwards, Mr Govers took a bottle of wine to her home.

She said he told her he could help if she was in trouble, and that he knew her children were in care and her violent partner had just gone to jail.

The woman said he asked her to perform a sex act on him, but court documents show Mr Govers denies this took place.

The woman was suing Peter Govers in civil court, arguing that their relationship was a fiduciary relationship - that he had a duty to act in her best interests. The Judge ruled that no such relationship existed - but she did say that she believed that the woman's story was more likely than not correct. I'm really glad that the woman involved was told that someone believed her.

The police culture in Rotorua in the 1980s was one that enabled police officers to rape women with impunity. That's pretty much a matter of record at this point.

We're supposed to believe that it's all changed now. It's all clean - the bad apples in Rotorua rotted the whole barrel - but bad apples aren't a problem anymore.

But a police officer can have sex with someone who did not feel able to say no and remain a police officer. Govers was demoted from detective Sergeant to Senior Constable. He still has the power of arrest, the badge, the baton, and the mates.

Years ago I asked this:

For me this shows one of the fundamental problem with the police. Abuse, including rape, appears to be an inevitable result of the sort of power we give police. I know people have different analyses about how much good the police do (I come down on the side of 'none'). But even if you believe that the police do improve society, do you really believe that what happened to Louise Nicholas, Judith Garrett and countless other women is an acceptable side effect of that good?

It's not just Rotorua and it's not just the 80s.

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

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

*********

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

There's hope in her survival.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Minor news

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

I never raped anyone, former officer tells the jury

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

News bite: Solo mums raise police bashers

Yes, I've probably extrapolated slightly too far, with my headline, but it really isn't that far from what Family First appear to be saying in this media statement:

...Fatherlessness is a major contributor to increasing rates of juvenile violence,” says Bob McCoskrie, National Director of Family First NZ.

“Scientific research is unanimous on a number of conclusions regarding family structure – that strong marriages increases the likelihood that fathers have good relationships with their children and lowers the risk of alcohol and substance abuse, domestic violence and child abuse,”

“Conversely, parental divorce or non-marriage appears to increase children’s risk of delinquent and criminal behaviour, amongst other factors. One only needs to observe proceedings at the Youth Court to see the effect of fatherlessness.”

“According to The Heritage Foundation, an influential US research institute, an analysis of social science literature over 30 years shows that the rise in violent crime parallels the rise in families abandoned by fathers. A state-by-state analysis indicated that a 10% increase in the percentage of children living in single-parent homes lead typically to a 17% increase in juvenile crime. The research found that criminal behaviour has its roots in habitual deprivation of parental love and affection going back to early infancy.”

“Research has shown time after time that the father’s authority and involvement in raising his children are great buffers against a life of crime,” says Mr McCoskrie.

“There are other factors such as violence in the media, the ‘rights’ culture being fed to young people, and the undermining of parental authority which are contributors, but family structure is a crucial place to start.”

“Violent crime will continue to increase as long as we downplay the importance and significance of having two parents, a mum and a dad, committed to each other and to their children.”

Click through for the whole thing.

Sexual assault victim speaks out on name suppression

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

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

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

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

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

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

Click through for the rest of the article.

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

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