It’s got to be the woman’s fault

33 comments on “It’s got to be the woman’s fault ”

• Comments are now closed

1. gingercrush 1

   22 June 2009 at 11:05 am

   [i]# Promoting a Bill that the Attorney General considers to be in breach of the Bill of Rights Act.
   # Having the same Bill criticised by the United Nations Human Rights Council as likely to violate two human rights conventions.
   # Caught out lying in his claim that 77 lives would have been saved if his Three Strikes Bill had been in force. Official information responses from the Corrections Department reveal there would have been none.[/i}

   How the hell are these strikes against someone? If lying about statistics was a strike against an MP then we may as well not have MPs since nearly all of them would have lied about statistics at one time or another.
2. sally 2

   22 June 2009 at 11:09 am

   I would have thought working for the ACT Party would be dirt enough…

   (Yes yes, I know – working for Parliamentary Services, not the ACT Party).
   • Rex Widerstrom 2.1

     22 June 2009 at 6:18 pm

     Hey, that’ll be enough of that bigotry 😛

     I worked (on contract, briefly) for Act as I did for Labour and NZF. I vehemently disagreed with some of what each of them proposed but none of it came from the place in the psyche from whence Garrett conjured his remark about male-on-male rape.

     The people in the NZF caucus who wanted restrictions on immigration didn’t hate immigrants on a personal level (though sadly many of the party’s supporters did). But with that comment Garrett made it clear that he would derive some sort of satisfaction if a person who was being double bunked was raped by their cellmate.

     I’ve been following politics for more than 30 years (for the past seven on both sides of the Tasman) and I can’t recall a comment that offended me so grossly.

     Decent people work for Act (as indeed they do for ther other parties). While I’m sure Garrett’s brand of hate resonates with a sector of society I can’t imagine it’s welcomed by most in Act any more than it is here.

     Which begs the question, what’s he still doing there?! I imagine Rodney is now torn between the embarrasment that would come with admitting it was a bad decision at the outset, and the the embarrasment that will surely come if he’s left in place. Personally, I’d have bitten the bullet and got rid of him now. I think Act will regret not doing so.
3. Pat 3

   22 June 2009 at 11:10 am

   I thought the Three Strikes Bill Act campaigned on was significantly altered by the 5 years prison term clause added into it, changing the effect from 77 lives to 0 lives.
4. felix 4

   22 June 2009 at 11:11 am

   Surely the real question is what was she doing out of the kitchen?
5. Redbaiter 5

   22 June 2009 at 11:13 am

   This is a total misrepresentation of what Garret said.

   It does not matter who the politician is, Labour or National, it is not right to slander people in this way merely because they do not conform to political ideals you demand them to.

   I defend Garret in this instance but I would defend any politician left or right who was likewise misrepresented.

   The facts show Garret just did not say these things.

   This country is getting sicker and more barbaric by the day.
   • Merlin 5.1

     22 June 2009 at 11:28 am

     Time to set sail aboard the Freedom Ship, eh, redbaiter?
   • Chris S 5.2

     22 June 2009 at 11:45 am

     Here I am, agreeing with RedBaiter and defending Garret… gosh…

     Drunkenly equating homosexuals with paedophiles on Eye to Eye: “All homosexuals are paedophiles’

     That’s not what he said, and that’s definitely not a quote. Neither is the one after it

     The guy has enough poor decisions and policy to criticise him on, you don’t need to stoop to making things up. Even the core ACT supporters (you know, the libertarians) want nothing to do with him.
     • Tigger 5.2.1

       22 June 2009 at 12:18 pm

       From the Eye To Eye episode…

       Garrett: “Paedophiles, like homosexuals, 30 years ago homosexuals had, according to experts, a disease and they needed to be cured and it was a spectacular failure because homosexuality is a sexual orientation, so we decided that because there were 10 per cent of people who were homosexual it was no longer a disease. Paedophiles cannot be cured any better than …”

       Coddington: “You can’t bring homosexuality into it … ”

       Jackson: “I don’t understand this analogy.”
       • Pascal's bookie 5.2.1.1

         22 June 2009 at 12:25 pm

         So is he reckoning that we got it wrong with gays back in the day, or wrong with paedophiles today?

         They shoulda let him finish, he hadn’t even gotten close to stopping digging.
       • Chris G 5.2.1.2

         22 June 2009 at 12:32 pm

         hahaha thanks for the clarification Tigger.

         You read that redbaiter?
         • Tigger 5.2.1.2.1

           22 June 2009 at 1:30 pm

           Redbaiter – “This country is getting sicker and more barbaric by the day.”

           I agree! Time for a change of government!
       • craig 5.2.1.3

         22 June 2009 at 2:20 pm

         Isn’t that a good point anyway? The only difference between straight people, homosexuals and paedophiles is that straight people and homosexuals can have consensual sex, whereas paedophiles can’t.
       • craig 5.2.1.4

         22 June 2009 at 2:22 pm

         And what’s really fucked up is that it’s legal to kill and eat animals, but it’s not legal to have sex with them.

         I can’t speak for females but as a male I’d rather be raped than killed and eaten, so suspect male animals feel the same way.
   • Chris G 5.3

     22 June 2009 at 12:33 pm

     The only time our country would be getting seriously sick and barbaric is if redbaiter was in charge.
6. roger nome 6

   22 June 2009 at 12:33 pm

   Is this guy for real? I want to see him continue to run for Act – surely it’s got to be good for the left?
   • Lew 6.1

     22 June 2009 at 2:31 pm

     Add to that, ‘craig’ here should stand with him. What a double act.

     L
     • craig 6.1.1

       22 June 2009 at 2:38 pm

       Haha what’s logically wrong with either of those comments?
       • Lew 6.1.1.1

         22 June 2009 at 2:40 pm

         craig,

         The premiss(es).

         L
7. sonic 7

   22 June 2009 at 3:55 pm

   You cannot blame him for the Gay/Pedophilia remarks, he was pissed at the time

   http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz-election-2008/news/article.cfm?c_id=1501799&objectid=10543271
8. killinginthenameof 8

   22 June 2009 at 5:51 pm

   It’s not OK… unless….
9. James 9

   22 June 2009 at 6:10 pm

   Well this Libertarian ACT member likes Garrett and can’t belive the bullshit beat up going on here by the septic Left.

   Garretts point on Gays and Pedophiles was correct….he was using an historical example and I see nothing wrong with that.He said Gays were naturally the way they are and it seems Pedophiles are as well…

   His statement re prisons and possible rape was also a matter of fact…..if you can’t do the time don’t do the crime in otherwords.He never said rape was right….just that it happens in prison and if the thought of it happening bother you then don’t end up there…perfectly fair and correct.

   “# Promoting a Bill that the Attorney General considers to be in breach of the Bill of Rights Act.”

   The AG was obliged to bring up the possible breach….it was a non issue.

   “# Having the same Bill criticised by the United Nations Human Rights Council as likely to violate two human rights conventions.”

   As the UN knows nothing of real human rights and indeed promotes leftist “rights” nonsense that actually violates them Garrett has no case to answer here.Nothing in the 3 strikes bill as Garrett originally proposed worries me one jot as a Libertarian..indeed its actully not hard enough in my opinion
   • Rex Widerstrom 9.1

     23 June 2009 at 12:59 am

     … it happens in prison and if the thought of it happening bother you then don?t end up there?perfectly fair and correct

     I’d be interested in knowing the categories of inmates for whom you consider anal rape to be an acceptable (albeit not “right”) part of their punishment.

     Those on remand, and thus potentially innocent? (In one prison I’ve studied in detail, over half of those remanded in custody later had the charges dropped or were found not guilty).

     Those guilty of non-violent crimes such as “white collar” offences, burglary etc?

     Those guilty but wrongfully convicted? (most authorities estimate around 44 NZ prisoners are wrongfully convicted, based on the numbers uncovered overseas by Innocence Projects, re-testing of DNA etc).

     Or just those guilty of violent offences?

     Trouble is, it’s the first two categories that are most often the victims of predators in our jails.
   • Philonz 9.2

     23 June 2009 at 9:38 am

     I guess by enabling an increase in rape and abuse in prison Garrett will be creating an increase in demand for the 3 strikes bill. If someone wasn’t violent before they went to prison, repeated rape would probably do the trick.
10. Pascal's bookie 10

    22 June 2009 at 6:29 pm

    “Garretts point on Gays and Pedophiles was correct .he was using an historical example and I see nothing wrong with that.He said Gays were naturally the way they are and it seems Pedophiles are as well ”

    …so what is the actual point he was making? What is that supposed to mean?

    He never said rape was right .just that it happens in prison and if the thought of it happening bother you then don’t end up there perfectly fair and correct.,

    As a libertarian shouldn’t you be at least partially aware that the state has responsibilities to the people it chooses to lock up? It doesn’t ‘just happen’ in prison. People do it, and the state should be doing everything it can to eliminate it. The state, while not doing the raping itself, still bears some responsibility. It has a duty that Garrett and your libertarian self don’t seem to be too bothered about.
11. James 11

    22 June 2009 at 7:24 pm

    ” so what is the actual point he was making? What is that supposed to mean? ”

    Not sure…didn’t see on TV.

    “As a libertarian shouldn’t you be at least partially aware that the state has responsibilities to the people it chooses to lock up? It doesn’t ‘just happen’ in prison. People do it, and the state should be doing everything it can to eliminate it. The state, while not doing the raping itself, still bears some responsibility. It has a duty that Garrett and your libertarian self don’t seem to be too bothered about.”

    So hold the State to account….but Garretts right….prison is unpleasent for a reason…bad people are held there and they do bad things….don’t want to go there?….don’t commit crime.
    • Philonz 11.1

      23 June 2009 at 9:41 am

      James, one of the reasons we have such a high rate of recidivism is because our prisons are such violent places. All prisoners learn there is how to be pissed off and violent. Encouraging that violence only fuels the problem Garrett is claiming his 3 strikes bill will solve.
12. Pascal's bookie 12

    22 June 2009 at 7:33 pm

    So you’re not sure what his point was, but you think that it was correct? Ok.

    Garrett is an MP james. he is part of ‘the State’.

    When he says that rape and assaults are ‘things that happen in prison’ and says that the best thing to do about that is ‘not go to prison if it concerns you’, don’t you think that he is rather missing the fucking point?

    Prisons aren’t run by, or for the benefit of, the bad people that are sent there. The State sends them there, the State runs them, and the State is responsible for making sure that they are as safe as they can be.

    For Garrett to wash his hands of this and imply that he is ok with it, (which is what he does by implying that the bad things are not the State’s responsibility), makes him whatever it makes him. In agreeing with him, it makes a mockery of whatever you think libertarianism to be.
    • Anita 12.1

      22 June 2009 at 8:21 pm

      Garrett is an MP james. he is part of ‘the State’.

      I want to start a conversation about strong publics and public spheres within the state and the extent to which Parliamentarians (as opposed to members of the Executive) are within the state.

      But I am afraid people might look at us funny 🙂
13. James 13

    22 June 2009 at 8:45 pm

    So you’re not sure what his point was, but you think that it was correct? Ok”

    Sigh….I meant in the context of what the shows topic was…his point that society once treated Gays as diseased and no longer does as its recognised that homosexuality is a natural sexual orientation and that there maybe is a corrolation with Pedophiles who are also naturally wired to find pre puberesant children sexually attractive and,I assume,that he was saying this required a fresh look at re law etc….I don’t know….I never say it.

    “When he says that rape and assaults are ‘things that happen in prison’ and says that the best thing to do about that is ‘not go to prison if it concerns you’, don’t you think that he is rather missing the fucking point?

    No….hes bang on that prisons are bad places and bad people do bad things in them.Sure they shouldn’t be able to but thats a fantasy that we aren’t ever going to see.

    “Prisons aren’t run by, or for the benefit of, the bad people that are sent there. The State sends them there, the State runs them, and the State is responsible for making sure that they are as safe as they can be.”

    Sure….but nothings perfect.If you don’t want to be butt stuffed by big bad bubba in the showers then make sure you don’t go to prison.Remove the risk factor for yourself by not ending up there.Its like if you don’t want to loose your legs don’t go tramping in the Cambodian bush….you may well stand on a mine.
    • Anita 13.1

      22 June 2009 at 8:54 pm

      James writes,

      Sigh .I meant in the context of what the shows topic was his point that society once treated Gays as diseased and no longer does as its recognised that homosexuality is a natural sexual orientation and that there maybe is a corrolation with Pedophiles who are also naturally wired to find pre puberesant children sexually attractive and,I assume,that he was saying this required a fresh look at re law etc .I don’t know .I never say it.

      I think you might be arguing that the Sensible Sentencing Trust’s legal advisor went on the telly and said that we should consider decriminalising paedophilia.

      I’m not sure that argument’s gonna make you a winner 🙂
14. toad 14

    22 June 2009 at 9:19 pm

    Garrett’s sure good at digging.

    Seems he now accepts making sexually inappropriate comments to New Zealand women in his Parliamentary office is not okay, but thinks doing the same to Tongan women is fine.
15. Pascal's bookie 15

    22 June 2009 at 9:24 pm

    No need to sigh James. You’re not making any sense, that’s not my fault.

    So is his point that we should decriminalise kiddie sex? Re-criminalise homosexuality? You said that you agreed with his point, then that you didn’t know what his point was, then that you assume to know what his point was but that ‘you never say it’. Whatever that means.

    Quit with the ellipsis and tell us why it is worth mentioning in terms of taking a ‘fresh look at… re law etc’, or alternatively, that you have no idea what the hell he was on about.

    At the moment it just looks like you are defending him simply because others are attacking him, but can’t articulate why you are defending him, or what he even meant.

    On the prisons you are missing the context. This was about double bunking. That is something that will increase the incidence of assaults and/or rape. It is something that the State would be choosing to do. you can’t just hide behind the passive voice and claims that the increases would ‘just happen’ because of ‘the bad people’.

    It was in response to being told the effects of that choice that Garrett said what he said. So it’s not, in fact about the State not being able to do it perfectly, but about the State choosing to make it worse.

    Your argument is that because the State cannot be expected to make it perfect, then it is not responsible for doing the best that it can. That’s just dumb. You could of course be honest, and say that the assaults and rapes are not worth spending the money to prevent.

    Your silly Cambodia analogy fails because prisoners don’t actually choose to go to prison. They may well deserve to, and they usually are aware of the risk, but their going to prison is the act of the State. Surely any Libertarian worth the name, and certainly any objectivist, could see this rather obvious point. More imporatanly, you are also assuming the the state only ever sends the right people to prison.

    For your justifications to work you need to think that:

    1) The State is so completely useless that there is nothing it can do to prevent assaults/rapes in prison, so it shouldn’t even try;

    and

    2) The state is so completely awesome that it only ever sends people to prison that should have expected to go there anyway.

    Those are quite strange beliefs for a libertarian to have.

    you might also want to consider, (as a libertarian), that we live in a representative democracy. It is society, (that would be us) that is locking people up, and not caring enough to do what we can to prevent them getting raped. Under this idea, who you choose to support helps shapes the policies that are in place. You help give power to parliament to act. The way you do it, and who you support effect the way that power is used. You don’t get to pretend that your support of policies gives you a free pass from any responsibility for them.

    That much, surely, any libertarian could agree with?

• Comments are now closed

• Log in
• Donate
• Contribute post

• Articles RSS