Backlash – Revision of Rights and the Impact of the Men’s Movements.

SPEECH TO RED HEARTS (CHRISTCHURCH LABOUR WOMEN’S BRANCH) FOR INTERNATIONAL WOMEN’S DAY, March 2010. (Part 2)

Within this renegotiation of basic rights – democratically elected representatives, privacy, the right to a fair hearing, there is a broader groundswell which affects women.

We have recently had a High Court case on abortion in which the legality of most of the abortions in NZ was queried. The Court of Appeal has conveniently for them side stepped the issue. On top of this, Medical Council requirements are being challenged by physicians with personal objections to abortion. They oppose being required to advise women who are doubtful about pregnancy that abortion is an option.

The Press recently ran a headline about our “Sexist DHB funding” questioning the allocation of funds for women’s health.

Our education system is challenged because girls are succeeding and boys aren’t beating them.

Our Family Court is frequently touted as being full of feminists, biased in favour of mothers and shrouded in secrecy.

Domestic violence has been re-framed as family violence. While, on the one hand, it rightly acknowledges that violence in families ranges wider than between two partners, I feel the gendered nature of violence has been diluted. How often have you heard the phrase “but women are violent too” as if that justifies male violence.

Last week, The Press ran an article about fathering. One of the comments was that since feminism, men do not know what their role is. I have to ask, “since which feminism?” Have men been uncertain of their role since women got the vote? Since women started to gain a level of financial independence? Are those men also confused when women date other women? And why is this stated confusion about men’s roles blamed on women?

Within women’s movements, there has been the development of theory. It might be Charlotte Perkins-Gilman and the sexual economics of marriage. Or Mary Ann Muller penning the first pamphlet for New Zealand women’s suffrage. Germaine Greer and the Female Eunuch or Naomi Wolf and the Beauty Myth. We’ve argued radical feminism, separatist feminism, lesbian feminism, the feminism of race and so on. We may not always agree but the feminist movement has been one of radical ideas and discourse.

To me, the men’s movement doesn’t seem to have the same kind of analysis, theory, debate and so on which the women’s movement has. When I hear the issues raised by men it seems to have as part of the argument an attack on the gains of women or assumptions that continue to suggest that men should have an advantage over women.

For example, funding for prostate screening is often paired with an argument that women get screening for cervical cancer and breast cancer. It’s raised as if that is an unfair advantage, undeserved or to the detriment of men’s health funding.

That boys are failing at school is coupled with an underlying assumption that girls, by rights, should not be excelling at school better than boys.

That is not to say that men’s groups are not making a valid point in raising the issues – access to health etc. But we need to be cautious that the gains women have made are not undermined in addressing issues reasonably raised by men.

Over the last few years, how many time have we heard that women have made it? After all, we have a female Governor-General, Prime Minister, Chief- Justice, Attorney-General and Speaker of the House. New Zealand is run by women so what are we women  complaining about?

But of course, now we don’t – with the exception that Sian Elias still holds her role.

How fleeting was our time in the sun.

Just as justice is not a pie with finite slices, nor is gender equity. A gain for women or a gain for men should not be a jeopardy for the other gender. There is always enough equity available for all.

We must just move forward together.

[End Speech]

Women and Criminal Justice

SPEECH TO RED HEARTS (CHRISTCHURCH LABOUR WOMEN’S BRANCH) FOR INTERNATIONAL WOMEN’S DAY, March 2010. (Part 1)

I feel that as the final speaker, I’m supposed to end on a positive note. I’m not going to deliver that optimistic ending.

My view, is that we are currently going through an erosion of human rights. We cannot assume any  collective acceptance of our human rights framework. Any past truce is over.

There has been a shift in our democracy. I refer to the Supercity structure and the suggestion that our democratically elected ECan could be scrapped and our local resource management handed over to a Board appointed by a Minister.

I also refer to recent legislation challenging our privacy through greater search and surveillance.

Being a lawyer, I first and foremost see an attack on our criminal justice system. Due to high profile cases like the Kahui twins or Louise Nicholas as well as the hysterical voices of the Family First Lobby and the Sentencing Sentencing Trust (or Non-Sensical Sentencing Trust as I prefer) the fundamental cornerstones of our criminal justice system are being rocked.

The right to silence i.e. to not to incriminate oneself by not having to give evidence is challenged by those who are disgusted that the Kahui family closed ranks to hinder investigation.

The right to a fair trial through an uninfluenced jury is challenged by those who criticise the suppression of names and evidence.

The right to a fair trial itself is challenged. I refer to an article in The Press last week where the family of a murder victim wondered “Why the matter had even gone to a hearing” and other recent articles and letters to the editor querying why legal aid is available to provide Counsel for the defence. I’m amazed we are questioning the fundamental right of the accused to have a fair hearing with access to skilled representation.

In  trial by media, we are no longer innocent until proven guilty.  In trial by media we are not entitled to have our fate determined by a jury of our peers.

Where are women in this dialogue? Women are here [Hold up The Listener cover “Why are so Many Christchurch Women Brutally Murdered, February 27-March 5, 2010 edition).

Of course, organizations are right to challenge the criminal justice system in terms of, for example, the abysmal conviction rate in rape trials. But we also need to be wary. For example, supporters of Louise Nicholas breached suppression rules by publicizing the Schollum and Shipton were already serving time in jail. What was not widely known at that time was that there was a second woman waiting to have her case heard against the same accused. She also had a right to have a fair hearing in terms of her complaint and we have to be wary of actions having a flow on effect and affecting others. An action thought to be assisting one woman find justice, could have hampered the right of another women to seek the same.

We also need to be careful not to buy into victimology. When women’s voices are heard, in terms of criminal justice reform, do we always want to be considered as victims? Particularly when being a victim is so often portrayed as weak, defenceless and bitter. It is rare, at least in the media, to see a victim who is strong and forgiving.

The present language around victimology is retributive. Does it reflect women’s values? If there are such common values. Feminists used to subscribe to a view of women and women’s values being compassionate, collectivist, nurturing and healing. These are not the current values reflected in discourse around victims, offenders and reform. Does Garth McVicar speak on behalf of women?

I also note, in this article, there is an overview of well reported violent offending in Christchurch. Here are the women – Lisa Blakie, Anna Wilson, Emma Agnew, Marie Davis, Tisha Lowry and other women. Here are the offenders – Timothy Taylor, Peter Waihape, Liam Reid, Dean Stewart, Jason Somerville and other men….

An entire article on Canterbury Crime; where is Gay Oakes?

Why do we remember Mark Lundy, David Gray and Clayton Weatherston? Why do we forget Gay Oakes. Tania Witika – manslaughter of her daughter, Delcilia Witika. Rachealle Namana, manslaughter of Lillybing. Julie Johnson who deliberately drove into a crowd of party goers killing Renee Brown and injuring 15 others (2003). Lisa Kuka for the manslaughter of Nia Glassie. Whatarangi Rawiri who was charged alongside Bailey Kurariki. Or Natalie Fenton, Katrina Fenton and Daniella Bowman who were all convicted for stabbing to death Raymond Mullins in 2000.

Women are offenders too. So when we talk about reform of our criminal justice system, we need to be aware that women fill the ranks of both sides. Consider this. The justice system is not a dish of pie to be sliced up. A greater serving for victims does not necessarily mean there is a smaller serve available for offenders. Equally, ensuring offenders are well served, does not mean victims miss out. The rights of all parties can be met.

(Part 2 to be posted shortly).

  • Calendar

    • July 2017
      M T W T F S S
      « Mar    
       12
      3456789
      10111213141516
      17181920212223
      24252627282930
      31  
  • Search