Reaction to Family and Whanau Violence Bill

The Family and Whanau Violence Bill that was introduced into Parliament yesterday.

Family violence is a big issue. Violence not only affects the well being of adults and children in families, it has adverse flow on effects in health, education, crime, imprisonment rates and employment.

I can’t find any reaction from Labour.

Green MP Jan Logie in Stuff – Overhaul of family violence laws goes before Parliament:

Green Party women’s spokeswoman Jan Logie said the Government’s reforms were “an important first step”, but she still had concerns about inconsistencies in ensuring the safety of children.

Logie wanted the reinstatement of the Bristol clause, which would refuse abusive former partners access to their children until their safety was assured, and was also concerned about a lack of funding for support services like Women’s Refuge.

“If we’re going to be asking these organisations to do this extra service and they’re struggling to stay open and meet the demand, then it’s not going to work.”

Justice Minister Amy Adams…

…said the safety of children was an “absolutely paramount consideration” both in existing law and the family violence reforms.

“We’ve done a lot more in these reforms, but broadly speaking, the underlying rationale still remains, which…has always and continues to put the safety of children right at the forefront of decision-making.”

Then-Prime Minister John Key announced the overhaul last September…

…saying the Government would not “shy away” from tackling family violence.

“The challenge of reducing family violence lies with all of us, with the Government, the police, social agencies and with everyone who knows that violence is occurring.”

Police Commissioner:

At the time, the announcement was welcomed by Police Commissioner Mike Bush, who said being able to identify family violence offenders more easily would make it easier for police to provide support.

Women’s Refuge media release:


Women’s Refuge welcomes The Family and Whānau Violence Legislation Bill

The introduction of the much anticipated Family and Whānau violence legislation has been warmly welcomed by family violence organisation Women’s Refuge. The legislation introduced to parliament today places a far greater emphasis upon victim safety – a long overdue and applauded move. This change will see the justice sector required to place victim safety at the heart of much of their decision making, especially in to care of children and bail issues.

Women’s Refuge Chief Executive Dr Ang Jury says “we are very pleased to see the government has taken seriously the concerns and suggestions from those working at the coal face in crafting this comprehensive piece of family violence legislation; the strong emphasis on the safety of victims and their children is a great move”

Under the proposed legislation, processes around the granting and policing of Protection Orders by the Courts have been significantly strengthened. Information including risk factor information will now be made available to Police Districts when an Order is granted and breaches of Protection Orders will now be treated as aggravating factors at sentencing. In addition all bail applications before the Court must include careful consideration of victim safety.

“Incidents of family violence and abuse including breaches of Protection Orders are rarely isolated or ‘one off’ incidents, they are deliberate and frequently repeated. To see this reflected in the way the courts sentence is a significant step towards ensuring a victim’s safety is paramount”

Legislation changes will also include better recording and acknowledgement of family violence, better information sharing provisions between government and family violence agencies, the introduction of a code of practice across the sector, and the inclusion of new classes of offences. While Women’s Refuge has yet to see the details of all of these, they are positive about the proposed changes.

“We are pleased to see focused attention to strangulation and marriage by coercion with the introduction of these new offences. The inclusion of animal abuse in the new definition is also extremely pleasing as we know that threats of harm to pets are a frequent control tactic utilised by perpetrators; to see this explicitly recognised is a great step forward.”

The Family and Whānau Violence Legislation Bill was introduced to Parliament today to overhaul the Domestic Violence Act, amend five Acts and make consequential changes to over thirty pieces of law.

On promoting and excusing political violence

Kevin posted this comment: “Usually I’m just taking the mickey with these things but in this case there’s serious underling themes of what is violence, is it ever justified and when, etc, so could make a good thread. And to be honest I find the thread a little bit on the scary side.”

Referring to this post be ‘weka’ at The Standard: Punching Nazis, and practicing resistance

I’ve been sitting for a few days trying to figure out what I think about punching Nazis and applauding punching Nazis, as a form of resistance. The act spoke for itself in obvious ways, and yet the glee with which the anti-fascists danced around the internet putting the video to song left me discomforted, as did the inevitable stand-off between liberals and radicals about what’s ok.

In comments Marty Mars:

If you don’t punch them they think they are allowed to do what they want including punching others.

because of all that I say punch a nazi every time

Weka:

I agree with much of that, and I can’t say I have too much of a problem with the original punch.

That some people accept, excuse  and promote physical violence against people with different political views is a concern in the New Zealand context.

McFlock:

I tend to follow the rule of thumb that sometimes, some people need to be punched – but it is never a good thing.

This is why I try to avoid socialising with tories: they might be all amiable and good company, then they tend to say or do something that makes my fists itch.

Nazis are easy to justify punching, like paedophiles. I won’t be overly sad if Rolf Harris gets thumped in prison, for example.

The trouble is that if you don’t have a pretty firm line about where and when and on whom thumping is justifiable, you end up on a slippery slope.

The interesting argument is the dividing line between “someone who disagrees with you politically” and “oh hell, no, thump that guy”. In the case of nazis it’s important to not normalise their existence. So yeah, disrupt their interviews. If that doesn’t work, hit them. And the more political power they gain despite those actions, escalate it again. Because as they’ve shown, as soon as they get a legitimate toehold they’ll expand their campaign of hate.

Yes, that’s me advocating intolerance to the point of violence. The difference is that I’m intolerant to nazi-style organisations, because they’re intolerant of every other group in society. Not one or two groups that are particularly vile, everyone. That’s pretty much what makes them nazis. They glory in violence against inferiors, and see themselves as superior to everyone else (well, overcompensate much, anyway).

Weka:

Spot on McFlock. I love it when someone else does all the thinking and then encapsulates it so I don’t have to. Thanks for that 😎

I would probably separate out paedophiles from Nazis, although that’s a different conversation I think.

But as McFlock pointed out, if you start trying to decide which political views or social behaviour esxcuses violence or not it becomes a slippery slope.

Phil makes an important point:

My concern with this matter is a little more practical: what is the measurement standard for determining if one is or is not a Nazi?

Someone like Richard Spencer, with his truly vile and hateful views of race and ethnicity, would seem to exceed any reasonable metric of judging Nazi-ness and my initial gut reaction is that he deserves to be punched, repeatedly.

But, each of us is going to have a different standard for measuring Nazi-ness. Your own post hints at it by linking John Key and proto-facist. I’ve seen plenty of people on here, and other blogs, suggest everyone from John Key and Helen Clark, to George Bush and Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump and Tony Blair and Nigel Farage are Nazi’s.

I have serious concerns that some deluded individual is going to think “I think Politician X is a Nazi, therefore it’s acceptable for me to punch, or shoot, or kill them” and that’s not a political opposition/resistance we should be encouraging in any way at all.

And then in comes Sanctuary:

Waaaaaaayyyy to much over-analysis going on here. The neo-fascist got clocked on camera. Good job.

And:

Jesus, what a bunch of namby pambies! You all sound like the giddy heights of resistance for you is pointedly refusing a second biscuit from a conservative vicar.

Now look here. Right wing violence in the form of cruel infliction of poverty or the humiliation of having to grovel for a dime happens all the time. These right wing neo-fascist types are not playing at politics, unlike the completely useless bunch of pearl clutching pacifists here. Those assholes wouldn’t think twice about stomach punching your granny, or slashing her pension to nothing. I would happily scone any one of them on the noggin with a baseball bat. Assholes deserve it.

Weka responded:

What are you on about? There’s 2 people in this thread who I would consider leftish, that have said it’s wrong to punch people, and 3 RWers. Everyone else is saying there’s a context and are talking about that. Hardly a bunch of namby pamby pacifists. I wonder if you are bothering to even read what people write, or the pos, let alone think about it.

Her response is a bit bizarre, and notably doesn’t oppose the violent suggestions.

I guess it’s ok to raise discussions about whether political violence is acceptable or ever justifiable, but I would have liked to see condemnation of it from a blog moderator who warns and bans people for very trivial things.

I find  labeling people left or right or Nazi or fascist in the context of making reasons and excuses for violence, especially in a politically benign New Zealand context, more than a bit disturbing.

Violence on political or religious or ethnic or just about any grounds, especially initiating it, should simply be condemned.

Christmas = violence

Unfortunately for many people the Christmas period means markedly more violence.

Instead of celebrating Christmas time and holidays some families – quite a few of them – get the bash instead.

Violence is one of the biggest blights on New Zealand society.

The Herald is trying to confront this.

family_violence_article_banner

New Zealand has the worst rate of family and intimate-partner violence in the developed world. Over the Christmas and New Year period the number of incidents spikes dramatically. Fewer than 20 per cent are reported to the police – so what we know of family violence in our community over the festive season is barely the tip of the iceberg. Today we have a simple message – every Kiwi has a right to a safe, fear free and happy holiday. We are revisiting our campaign We’re Better Than This to raise awareness, educate, and give an insight into the victims and perpetrators. We want to encourage victims to have the strength to speak out, and abusers the courage to change their behaviour.

They have a case study in partner violence: Athlete’s ex-wife – I kept it hidden

The ex-wife of a former top sportsman has spoken of her abusive marriage in a bid to highlight the fact that family violence can and does happen in all Kiwi homes.

She is one of many people prompted to talked about their experience with family violence by the Herald campaign We’re Better Than This.

“It started with him kicking me and then pulling my hair, spitting on me and pulling me, shoving me.

“He would tell me when I told him it was physical abuse that it wasn’t because he had not used his fists.”

When she was heavily pregnant with her second child, she became upset at her husband when he arrived home late.

In response, he dragged her across their bed by the hair and would not let her go until she apologised for berating him.

As a society we have to be better than this, and this means we need to talk about it more openly.

Family harm and intimate partner violence happens in the poorest of Kiwi homes and the richest.

Among the victims are our most educated people, and our most vulnerable.

They are young and old. They are from all ethnicities.

The term family violence encompasses intimate partner violence, child abuse, elderly abuse and the abuse of disabled people within families. By far the most significant of all family violence is men abusing women.

Another example:

“I got married when I was 21 to a guy I met at church, who I thought was a great guy,” said Sarah, who did not want her surname published.

“When we were dating I noticed … how critical and harsh he was [to others], but … I thought ‘he will never treat me that way’.

“He had this charm and confidence which I was initially attracted to.

But when they got married:

He started calling her derogatory names and became extremely controlling, demanding to know what she spoke to her friends about.

“He didn’t like me going to my doctor by myself and would insist on coming because ‘I couldn’t explain myself well’,” she said.

“He would grab me, shove me against walls, put his head up to my face and scream.”

That took a huge toll on her mentally and physically, but she “kept up appearances” at work and in public so the world thought they were a “happy young couple”.

“All this time I had no idea I was in an abusive relationship. I thought that was for older women who have been badly physically abused.

“The psychological torture of those times [was] horrible.”

We as a society have to be better than this.

READ MORE:
Family violence: ‘Just pick up the phone, we could save your life’
Family violence survivor: ‘Christmas was HELL’

If you’re in danger NOW:

• Phone the police on 111 or ask neighbours or friends to ring for you
• Run outside and head for other people
• Scream for help so your neighbours can hear you
• Take the children with you
• Don’t stop to get anything else
• If you are being abused, remember it’s not your fault. Violence is never okay.

Where to go for help or more information:

• Women’s Refuge: Free national crisis line operates 24/7 – 0800 REFUGE or 0800 733 843 womensrefuge.org.nz
• Shine, free national helpline 9am-11pm every day – 0508 744 633 2shine.org.nz
• It’s Not Ok: Information line 0800 456 450 areyouok.org.nz
• Shakti: Providing specialist cultural services for African, Asian and Middle Eastern women and their children. Crisis line 24/7 0800 742 584
• Ministry of Justice: justice.govt.nz/family-justice/domestic-violence
• National Network of Stopping Violence: nnsvs.org.nz
• White Ribbon: Aiming to eliminate men’s violence towards women, focusing this year on sexual violence and the issue of consent. whiteribbon.org.nz

‘Coward’s punch’ law

Winston Peters announced last week that a ‘one-punch’ assault should be subject to a separate law.

‘King Hit’ Sentences Far Too Light

Perpetrators of “King hits” should be sentenced to a minimum of eight years if their victims are killed, says New Zealand First.

“We want to send a message. Land one of these cowardly punches, take a life, and you’re behind bars a long time,” New Zealand First Leader and MP for Northland Rt Hon Winston Peters said in a speech to the Police Association in Wellington today.

“There have been too many cases of innocent people dying from a ‘King hit’. Good people have been killed. Families and friends are suffering.

“The ‘King hit’ punch will be defined in law as ‘an event  that is unexpected and unprovoked but of such force to the head that it is likely to cause incapacitation, injury or death’.

“New Zealand First will ensure the length of the sentence will send a message that society will not accept this level of violence,” says Mr Peters.

Calling this type of assault a ‘king hit’ is a mistake. It’s a very cowardly sort of attack.

Is a special law for it necessary, beyond trying to appease a populist support base?

Manslaughter can already result in up to a life sentence, although now sometimes shorter sentences are given. Recently an Invercargill sentenced a ‘man’ to 22 months in prison. Would a longer sentence achieve anything?

Singling out one sort of assault could lead to anomalies in charging and sentencing.

Why is one punch worse than two punches? Two punches followed by a few kicks in the head? Driving a vehicle into a crowd?

Are one-punch sentences too light relative to other assaults? Or is singling them out a  knee-jerk reaction, or trying to appeal to the ‘lock-em-up crowd?

The Otago Daily Times looks at this policy in today’s editorial The full force of the law?

Mr Peters’ king-hit policy must be viewed with eyes wide open, however. This is already election season and the promises, baits, bribes and face-savers are coming in thick and fast: everything from more police, more houses and more affordable houses to less immigration and tax cuts. Crime and punishment is a favourite, and it is all too easy to promote policies which prey on fear and highlight retribution in order to make political mileage.

The jury is still out on the effectiveness of one-punch laws as a deterrent. Is our current legislation really not up to the task? There is undoubtedly debate around sentencing in some cases, but there are also serious questions over whether a one-size-fits-all hard-line approach is desirable. And, if attitudes towards alcohol and issues with anger are at the root of the problem, is such a policy anything more than an ambulance at the bottom of the cliff?

It is clear something needs to be done about alcohol-fuelled violence within our society. For years this newspaper has carried headlines which clearly show the prevalence of the problem, where nights out have resulted in bar fights and street brawls. Indeed, it sometimes seems this is the point of a night out for some.

Although a “quick fix” may be desirable, surely a holistic approach is more sustainable. Populist policy may tick the punishment box, but it doesn’t address the cocktail of other factors driving these crimes: alcohol availability and price, our culture of excess and permissiveness, our “hard-man” image, our focus on rights over responsibilities, and our latent anger and aggression.

All must surely be part of the mix if we are to make a meaningful difference – and help save lives.

Alcohol abuse and violence, especially when combined, is a very serious problem in New Zealand. It is deep rooted in our society, complex and  and difficult to deal with. Singling out one very narrow and infrequent type of assault may attract some votes but it is a very narrow, lazy, populist approach.

It will take a lot more than increasing sentences on specific occasional crimes to address mindless violence and alcohol abuse. Cowards who get pissed don’t care about the consequences for either themselves or their victims.

The message that Winston is sending will do little if anything to improve a problem. It looks like a cynical message to potential voters, not to thugs.

Raging over Losi Filipo

Losi Filipo was lucky to escape conviction for a brutal assault on four people.

Losi Filipo was unlucky to escape conviction for a brutal assault on four people because the furore that has erupted as a result has put a disproportional degree of publicity on what happened.

Late yesterday Filipo ended his rugby contract with the Wellington Lions, presumably to try and dampen things down.

He was in a hopeless situation anyway as if he had played there would have been a huge media distraction.

His playing future must be in doubt, as it is likely that any sign of violence is likely to be highlighted and amplified.

While he escaped a conviction and sentence from the court his public sentence is probably disproportionately severe. A fine and some community service would have probably been easier on him.

There’s a lot of violent crime in New Zealand and most of it escapes much if any scrutiny, it is normal life in New Zealand.

So Filipo is suffering more than normal, and that is likely to continue for some time, especially if he tries to play high level rugby again.

In a way this may seem disproportionately unfair.

But the violence he inflicted on four people was also very unfair. Many many New Zealanders are unfairly affected by violence. Many have their lives wrecked by violence.

So while Filipo may be effectively suffering greater consequences than the average thug  greater good may be served by his public sentence.

It has raised public awareness of the insidious effects of violence in our society.

What needs to happen now is a much better response from New Zealand Rugby. Many rugby players and lovers will be dismayed that their sport keeps getting tainted by thuggery.

The Rugby Union has to stand up here and do far more to distance the sport from thuggish violence. It has to lead on dealing with it, not flail in response to a string of embarrassments.

Filipo’s rugby career may have been trashed – largely due to his own actions – and his sport has been trashed with it.

But NZRFU could use this to make a real stand against violence, if the so choose.

They and the media and the people of New Zealand can stop raging over violence and do something about reducing it.

Delegat apology but will consider appeal

The Delegat family issued a statement of apology on behalf of Nikolas Delegat to NZ Herald. This is included in an ODT article Rich-lister’s son apologises

In a statement released to the Herald on behalf of the Delegat family, Nikolas Delegat apologised for the harm he has caused.

“Nikolas takes full responsibility for his actions that night,” it says.

“He attended a restorative justice conference where he expressed his remorse, and he again apologises to the police officer, university security guard and all others concerned.

“Nikolas was in the first two month of his university study away from home in Dunedin.

“He made a bad decision in the heat of the moment which caused considerable harm to those affected, which he regrets.

“He also apologises to his family and those around him for the trouble he has caused them.”

But Delegat’s lawyer Mark Ryan said that an appeal against the conviction and sentence (he sought a discharge without conviction).

However, Mr Ryan confirmed Delegat, his family and legal team had an “open mind” about the possibility of appealing the sentence and conviction.

“I can’t rule that out,” he told the Otago Daily Times after the hearing. “It’s something that we’ll consider. `I will discuss it with my client and his family and see which way we go on that.”

While the sentence seems relatively light given the seriousness of the assault…

Delegat was sentenced to 300 hours community work for the police assault, 100 hours for assaulting a campus watch officer, 60 hours for wilful damage, and 60 hours for resisting arrest. He has also been ordered to pay $5000 emotional harm reparation to the police officer he punched.

…the impact of the conviction could be significant:

His lawyer said a conviction would prevent Delegat from becoming a licensed authorised financial adviser under the Financial Markets Authority – a career which he was pursuing – and from entering the United States to compete in yacht races.

But Judge Kevin Phillips rejected that due to the impact the attack had on Constable Kane…

…resulting in 15 hours of hospital treatment, several weeks off-duty, months of recuperation and ongoing issues with headaches. Kane is still being helped by colleagues on her road back to work, 18 months after the attack.

`Tell me about his financial position,” Judge Phillips said to Mr Ryan.

“He’s able to pay a fine,” Mr Ryan responded.

“I’m not talking about a fine. I’m talking about emotional harm reparation. This has almost destroyed her life,” the judge said.

Alcohol was involved, as it is in a lot of violent crime. But alcohol can’t excuse this sort of violence:

Judge Phillips said Delegat punched Const Kane with enough force to “render that officer into a state of unconsciousness”.

“[He] then punched her another three or four times … all aimed at the head,” he said.

The other responding officer, Constable Keith Early, described the violence of the assault in evidential briefs referenced by Judge Phillips, saying Delegat was “absolutely smashing her”.

For someone to react that viciously, whether drunk or not, there must have been some underlying tendency towards reactive violence. Many people who get drunk don’t get violent, but far too many do.

Delegat may have “made a bad decision in the heat of the moment”, and that may impact on his life significantly from now on, but his actions have also had a serious immediate and ongoing impact on the person he attacked, and could have easily been much worse due to his recklessness and viciousness.

Unfortunately this sort of violence and damage to people’s health and well being is common. This is just one case that happens to have received a lot of publicity and criticism, but violent crime goes through the courts day after day, week after week, year after year.

Something must change. Many people’s behaviour must change, and many more people’s attitude to violence must change. Same with alcohol use and abuse.

We are all a part of a far too violent society. Grizzling about the occasional case that gets media attention isn’t enough.

Here on Your NZ we can all do something about it, by not reacting badly to issues or people we disagree with, by not proposing or portraying violence as if it is acceptable, by not posting personal attacks (which can amount to a form of online violence), and by confronting violent behaviour – not with violent responses, but reminding of the need for respect of others and  the need for responsible behaviour.

And by setting an appropriate non-violent, non threatening example. We all have a part to play in this forum and in our society.

Nikolas Delegat and Constable Kane have had their lives significantly affected a few moments of deplorable violence. We can all learn from the resulting publicity.

Seconds of violence, years of prison

Cowardly attacks seem to be prominent in the news at the moment. Sometimes referred to as ‘king hits’ vicious unprovoked attacks are gutless and dangerous.

Consequences can be severe, both for the victims and for the thugs.

Some assaults result in death, many result in months or years of suffering and hardship for the victims.

So the repercussions for the attackers must be severe, whether it is a result of a few seconds of drunken stupidity or not. A drunken thug is still a thug.

Yet another example via the ODT: Jailed for 10-second assault

Ten seconds was all it took to change two lives forever.

An 18-year-old, filmed on CCTV in an unprovoked, violent assault on a man he had rendered unconscious, was sentenced yesterday to three years and nine months in jail.

Six months after the attack, the 43-year-old victim is still feeling the effects, and is nervous about going out at night, the Alexandra District Court was told.

Niko William Vernon Reid-Manuel (18), of Cromwell, appeared in court for sentencing on charges of causing grievous bodily harm to Gareth Owen Wynn on February 27 at Cromwell, with intent to cause grievous bodily harm. He was also charged with stealing Mr Wynn’s $15 sunglasses after the assault.

Judge Kevin Phillips said Reid-Manuel attacked the victim when the man was lying on the ground, unconscious.

The defendant had punched the victim hard on the jaw and Mr Wynn fell to the ground unconscious “in what would probably be described by a television programme as similar to a king hit”, Judge Phillips said.

Following that blow, CCTV footage showed a short period of time – 10 seconds – of “extreme violence” Reid-Manuel had inflicted on the unconscious man.

“You went out of your way to inflict serious injury. You attacked the victim’s head and attacked him when he was out cold.

“… he received several punches to his head and body; he could not offer any defence of his body whatsoever. You moved off and then came back and kicked his head. You returned and then took the sunglasses.”

The victim received fractures to his cheekbone, nose, jaw, eye socket and ribs and numerous cuts and abrasions, Judge Phillips said.

“This type of street violence, unprovoked, gratuitous type of violence, has to be strongly denounced.”

An unprovoked punch is bad enough, but continuing to assault an unconscious person is despicable.

Crown counsel Craig Power said it was a “short but extremely violent attack”.

“It’s very important to state the significant effect this had on the victim. He lost his job, has ongoing effects from broken ribs, and is extremely cautious and wary about going out at night. … he didn’t do anything to start this dispute,” Mr Power said.

The pre-sentence report said the defendant showed little remorse or empathy.

Not just gutless, also remorseless.

Counsel Russell Checketts said Reid-Manuel was a first offender.

The defendant had been in a fight before this one and “came off the worst” and was concerned the same thing would happen again, Mr Checketts said. He accepted the victim’s injuries were serious but said fortunately the victim did not require any surgery and was not permanently disabled.

Lawyers have to try something but that is a very lame defence. Trying to play down the severity if the viciousness ignores the facts.

About the only fortunate thing is that Reid-Manuel wasn’t facing manslaughter charges – fortunate for the victim.

This sort of violence must be learned somewhere. It is a major stain on New Zealand society.

Responding to violence with compassion

A very good comment at The Standard on their Nice attack thread in response to this from Psycho Milt:

Compassion isn’t an appropriate feeling for someone who’d deliberately drive a truck into a crowd of random strangers.

McFlock:

Actually, it’s almost certainly a very appropriate response to someone who ends up in that mindspace.

Because the absence of compassion for those who inflict pain simply puts us into the same mindspace that they were in: anger focussed at people who we no longer fully regard as human.

It’s incredibly difficult to respond to violence with compassion, few of us can really do it, but it’s something to aspire to. The alternative is to just continue the cycle of violence and injustice.

 

Crap on social media “fucking disgusts me”

@FrancesCook posted this on Twitter yesterday:

I didn’t know Jo Cox. But I have some thoughts on her awful, tragic death.

There is quite a bit – far too much – of disgusting, disgraceful personal attacks in social media. Mass attacks are common.

Confronting this sort of gutless behaviour is not without it’s risks, as I’ve found out. People have gone as far as attempting legal action, trying to shut down this website and threatening me with jail – someone said they wanted me jailed for 3 months ‘by Christmas’ (last year).

But that doesn’t mean confronting abusive and threatening behaviour shouldn’t be attempted. It’s critical that it is done, double. Bullies typically react badly to being ridiculed but that’s one of the best and most deserving approaches.

Because if more people don’t step up and speak up about online anger and provocation then it’s just a matter of time before some nutter sees things said online as encouragement and justification for doing very bad things. As we have seen in the US and UK this week.

Political debate should be, must be vigorous. Passion is and should remain a part of it. There are serious issues at stake.

But there are lines that should be obvious to anyone involved in politics that should not be crossed.

Partly for basic human decency.

Partly so as not to provoke and reinforce less controlled people.

And partly because talking up intolerance and evil and violence are counter-productive to sensible and effective politics.

Democracy 101 is to attract support and attract votes. Arsehole behaviour does the opposite.

Crap on social media is too often disgusting. And ironically it is often perpetrated by people who somehow believe that a million people disillusioned with politics (or never illusioned) will suddenly like their crap behaviour and start to vote their way.

Violent language wins few arguments and less respect and votes.

Some politicians and many political activists set very poor examples of acceptable behaviour, but the rest of us should rise above this, confront the crap and show that there are better and more decent ways of debating.

Atkins promoting violence and intolerance

Having just posted about female involvement in domestic violence I came across this post by Spanish Bride at Whale Oil, where she is promoting extreme intolerance and violence in the wake of the Orlando gay nightclub massacre.

This is the sort of inflammatory rhetoric that can encourage nutters like the Orlander killer to perpetrate extreme violence.

This is disgraceful from a website that promotes itself as leading alternative media in New Zealand.

Face of the day

screen-shot-2016-06-13-at-5-26-51-pm

 

Read what today’s face of the day Milo Yiannopoulos has to say about the Muslim terrorist massacre in Florida. Gays were targeted for death by the Muslim terrorist and Milo ( himself a gay man ) has some serious words for us all.

America has to make a choice. Does it want gay rights, women’s emancipation, and tolerance for people of all nonviolent faiths — or does it want Islam?

…So, most Muslims think I’m unacceptable. Fine. I also think their religion is unacceptable. And not just “radicals” and “extremists” — their entire, barbaric, backwards ideology. 100 million people live in Muslim countries where homosexuality is punishable by death.

We can’t go on like this. We can’t live in an America where gays fear going to night clubs, where satirists fear execution for their speech, where cartoonists consider whether their next drawing might get them killed.

Today’s killings prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that we need to give particular scrutiny to certain faiths. Gays, apostates, and women are tired of being abused, harassed, and murdered by followers of the “religion of peace.”

And politicians have to stop lying about the link between Islam and these horrific acts.

…The gay Establishment, run by far-left wackos, is of course part of the problem too. It constantly makes excuses for Islam instead of sticking up for the people it’s supposed to protect.

Wake up, faggots. The political Left is part of the problem.

-breitbart.com

Intentionally or not I think this encourages and promotes extreme violence as well as extreme religious intolerance, and it uses a tragedy to deliberately inflame.

New Zealand has to be much better than this.

Spanish Bride is Juana Atkins. Inflammatory speech and extreme violence and intolerance are as bad when promoted by women as it is when promoted by men.