Hard News: So far from trivial
1076 Responses
First ←Older Page 1 … 23 24 25 26 27 … 44 Newer→ Last
-
Carolyn: Absolutely so. I have seen the escalation factor. Chance may be the factor some of the time but not the only factor. And again everyone would agree with this knowledge based on research. Especially related to repeat offenders. Scum! There are others however, who are one-off explosions.
-
I think we're seeing the limits of relativism in some of the comments here, and it's reminding me what I find annoying about 70s hippies.
Some things have absolute thresholds even if they otherwise include degrees, in this case of violence. That's the basis of saying "it's not ok" rather than "it's relatively not ok".
As robbery noted a couple of pages ago: "its where that line that we try not to cross is, and where we as a society say is reasonable for that line to be placed."
The only debate should be where the line is - not whether it exists. We've moved on from that surely, no matter how comforting it may be to cling to a belief that we're all the same and everything is a matter of degree.
-
St phen. I enjoyed your contribution.
Now I feel dirty. Ian - read Sacha's response twice and then enjoy this:
Some people think it's useful to debate issues on an intellectual level in a rational, unemotional way, dissecting all sides of the argument, drawing out subtle nuances etc etc. A high proportion of men fit into this category, plus certain occupational classes (lawyers, scientists) and perhaps people on the autism spectrum. It's a valid viewpoint given that a significant chunk of humanity favours this approach, but that doesn't make it the only or best way.
There are others for whom abstract intellectualised discussion of highly emotive topics is anathema. You don't have to trawl far through the PAS back pages to find issues that polarise these two groups: Assault. Rape. Abortion.
Since leaving uni and becoming a grown up, I have found that those people who hate sexist, racist rednecks also despise patronising, superior, "so-what-you're-trying to say..." pseudo-liberals. Funny that. Frankly, I never questioned my latent sexism until I was in a heterosexual relationship, never examined my underlying racism until I was in a mixed-race relationship, and will probably never to get to grips with the details of my homophobia unless my son comes out.
Suggest you listen more, talk less. Despite your tiresome efforts you haven't advanced anything beyond RB's original post ie. if the original account is basically true, there is no place to discuss "degree or chance" while Veitch is still spinning his way out of taking responsibility for anything. -
I'll always remember Matthew Ridge saying "I've brought Nicky" when asked on one of those puerile reality shows what he had brought along to share.
And I'll always remember Ellis replying with "Maaaaate... you're a true friend."
BTW, would it be too tasteless to exclaim
"Burn him! He's a Veitch!"
</obscure-Monty-Python-reference>
-
Chance meant if this was a different time, a different place, arrived later, weapon not to hand, baby had slept for even a few hours, etc.
Ian, for me this misses a lot of what domestic violence can actually be about. Sparks of violent response can happen as Jackie described. It's wrong, there are better ways of communicating frustration, can certainly become a criminal assault charge and be rightly dealt with so.
And then there are the cases where the violence alone is horrendous but is actually the tip of a huge iceberg of jealousy, humiliation, control and put-down. A whole way of relating to women (and yes it probably happens the other way too but I think women are most often on the receiving end) that is just sick. Wellington Women's refuge put out a book a number of years ago called "he said he loved me." It was a harrowing but valuable insight into the lives of some of the women who took refuge and the men who put them there (including. surprise, surprise, white middle class "respectable" pillars of the community). I think the plight of these women and the understanding of the attitudes that put them there are watered down a lot by "well everyone can lash out, male or female in the right circumstances." Yes they can but it's a different kettle of fish - still wrong but different. Another book was recently published with this title and I haven't read it but I suspect it is indeed worth a read.
Which kettle does Tony Vietch belong in? Don't know. Judged by his excuses, he starts to conform to the second picture but we don't know. The look of anger rather than embarrassment or humiliation on his face as he left TVNZ or wherever in his car chilled me. I would hate to see him front anything on family violence any time soon. For me that call could only be made by a counsellor in conjunction with a partner who has lived with him safely over some time.
-
Thanks, St ephen. Well said.
-
Ste phen:I am deeply sorry if anything I said made you feel dirty. I thought that all the way through that I was speaking as an elderly interested spectator. If my thoughts at any time in this marathon caused offence to anyone I apologise. Certainly not my intent.
-
Judged by his excuses, he starts to conform to the second picture
Women's refuge summation, I should have made clear.
-
I have just read Tapu Misa's column. Wow! And St ephen above. I've followed the Veitch story since the onset for some media class work I'm struggling to deal with and I think my tiny brain was trying hard to resist the media manipulation. Veitch's response in the interview with Holmes, Tapu Misa's column and st ephen's last para have now convinced me that Russel's first post hit the nail on the head.
Can't resist the King Lear quote below on the rich vs poor/justice issue.
"Plate sin with gold,
And the strong lance of justice hurtless breaks:
Arm it in rags, a pigmy's straw does pierce it."And yet, st ephen, Lear also says, "None doth offend, none I say". In Christian terms we are all miserable sinners and "he who is without sin ..."
-
It is just a matter of degree. Starting from just yelling/swearing at someone through to a sadistic killing it is all a matter of degree and chance.
That is such bullshit, Ian. Sure, it's a scale, but damn straight we can make judgments about either end of the scale. Yelling / swearing is bad, not doubt, because it's not exactly the way to have a constructive conversation. But your lazy conflation of yelling / swearing end of the scale with the serious physical violence end of the scale astounds me. There are NO excuses for hitting someone, and then kicking them.
As Danielle said:
I do rather wonder why some of these guys who 'lose control' on their partners have the ability to *not* 'lose control' at certain other times. Like, say, when they're surrounded by big brick-shithouse dudes in public somewhere.
Ian, not matter how you say that you condemn physical violence, your continued attempts to find excuses for Tony Veitch's behaviour, the seemingly endless series of comments to the effect that we all go there, the repetition of the 'he just cracked line', sounds very much like accepting physical violence to me.
We DO NOT all go there and it is NOT just a matter of chance that we don't slip over the line. How damned insulting to every single man and woman on this thread who has been intensely angry and has controlled themselves and NOT gone there.
Take your tidy little homilies, your tired string of cliched excuses for violence, your lazy moralising, and try them on a Woman's Refuge worker sometime. I will be surprised if she doesn't throw up.
-
We DO NOT all go there and it is NOT just a matter of chance that we don't slip over the line.
Cheers Deborah, I have been finding these "There but for the grace of god..." statements somewhat offensive too.
-
As Danielle said:
I do rather wonder why some of these guys who 'lose control' on their partners have the ability to *not* 'lose control' at certain other times. Like, say, when they're surrounded by big brick-shithouse dudes in public somewhere.
Well, Deborah, perhaps it says a lot about the social circles I move in but I know a few tiny as a dollhouse chicks you'd fuck with at your mortal peril. And don't even look sideways at the big, butch hard-living, take no shit, take no prisoners dykes of a certain age I know. They learned to stick up for themselves in a very hard school indeed.
-
Cecilia, you might be interested how the planted phrase "lash out" has started being unquestioningly repeated in recent coverage, even used by Jane Drumm in that Taopu Misa story. A triumph of framing and pr, and very relevant for any examination of how the overall discourse evolves.
-
How damned insulting to every single man and woman on this thread who has been intensely angry and has controlled themselves and NOT gone there.
And thanks for that, Deborah. I've still got a hell of a temper -- and, even around here, it sometimes pops out in ways that aren't exactly anything to be proud of. But believe it or not, it's a hell of a lot better than it used to be. And just because my preferred abuse was verbal and psychological (or, to put it crudely, thoroughly fucking around with people's heads) - and certainly not helped by my alcoholism or mental illness -- there's not a lot of mitigating factors in play.
There but for the grace of God? There but for more people than I can name who do bless me with unconditional love than includes undiluted reality and zero tolerance for self-delusion and self-justification.
-
I think "there but for the grace of god" forms our opinions far more than most rational people would like to admit, on this case as well as many others.
Thing is, it's a question of where that "there" is. For most of the people round here, that's the victim's shoes we're worrying about inhabiting, given the prevalence of domestic violence and its disproportionate impact on women. It takes a slightly different mindset to look at the perpetrator's shoes and get concerned about what it would be like to be in them.
-
Is 32 pages of comments a record on here?
-
Some things have absolute thresholds even if they otherwise include degrees, in this case of violence. That's the basis of saying "it's not ok" rather than "it's relatively not ok".
I fully agree with you here Sacha. For me the question is then 'now what'?
My understanding of the changes that were put through in policy in the early 90s around domestic violence is that the drive to get offenders in front of a judge was not primarily about punishing, or making offenders accountable for their actions. The primary reason was about pushing offenders into various programmes - Men Without Violence I think most of them were called - offered by various groups - and having that involvement responsible back to the courts, so if they didn't complete the course, the big stick could be brought out.
Without knowing what programme Veitch went through, I wonder what they'd think of his statement and actions since he was in their programme.
If we ask a philosophical question "is it OK for two individuals to deal with this privately, if it leads to _most_ of what a court would do - enrolment in an appropriate programme, payment for medical costs, loss of income".
When we consider that he probably missed out on either some jail time, preventative detention, or community service, if that matters to 'us', then that's a failure. I'm not sure personally how I feel about saying that _all_ serious crimes should lead to jail time, but I'd say that ones involving violence generally should.
For me personally his public statement was another failure - he was almost taking responsibility, but then excuses came out. I wonder what the people who ran his programme would think about his ownership of what he did.
-
Forget it Ian, that was 'dirty' with a small :-) . Look, I see where you're coming from because ( as you can tell from my own verbose and pompous posts) that's where I came from too, and I'd probably still be there if not for a few key influences along the way. What you (and sure, others too) really need to do is take on alternative world views without demanding that everyone accepts yours in return.
-
Kyle, I agree with the focus on "what next" for anyone in that situation.
I don't think Veitch has been in any programme yet, just private counselling. He's sure not going to live the useful and fulfilling life he could until he properly confronts what he has done and then acts consistently to make amends for it.
-
Sacha, you mean that TV used "lashed out" as a euphemism for kicking his partner and that subsequent commentators have picked it up and used it too - perhaps because it's easier for all of us to use??? So TV's PR people have sort of planted this in our heads?
Sorry to pick your brains but I've sort of got to teach news packaging for a class I'm looking after next week and I want to make them tease out the "truth" that lies behind the selection and packaging of news.
-
Cecilia, the phrase was very deliberately chosen and first used by Veitch during that press conference to avoid acknowledging that he had caused another person harm, which would constitute an admission of assault.
As others have noted it minimises the severity of the violence he inflicted. That's not accidental, and it alarms me that others have so unwittingly bought into it.
-
I do rather wonder why some of these guys who 'lose control' on their partners have the ability to *not* 'lose control' at certain other times. Like, say, when they're surrounded by big brick-shithouse dudes in public somewhere.
I did some work for the police in the mid-90s as a summer job, writing a report on violence in the Wellington region. Inevitably it included a large look at domestic violence.
The most interesting thing I found was the completely different understandings of violence between the police and womens refuge.
For the police violence was inside people, and allowed to be released, normally through consumption of alcohol. Alcohol removed the normal inhibitions that kept people acting reasonably. The police were pushing for me to find data which they could use to argue against the extension of alcohol licensing, longer opening hours, etc. They weren't attacking violence, they were attacking the things that they thought brought it to the surface.
The Womens Refuge coordinators that I spoke to during my research were very cynical of the police's understanding of domestic violence. They were much more interested in why, if you put two people in the same situation (drunk, in a stressful argument with a partner), why one would use violence, and the other wouldn't. They were attempting to answer deeper, more difficult questions about violence. What is it about a person that makes them violent?
It was a classic contrast of the two approaches - Police dealing with the symptoms and trying to stop them occurring, Womens Refuge dealing with causes, and arguing that the problem underneath should be dealt with.
-
Cecilia, the media were somewhat hamstrung because in the absence of comment from the only other witness they can only report what he said, unless they are confident to take the risk that the Dominion did. Our slanted defamation laws are responsible for that calculation when confronted by someone rich enough to sue.
That doesn't stop the rest of us characterising a beating on this scale differently, but it shows the power of repeated coverage and the value of pr advice if you want to shape a discussion.
-
I don't think Veitch has been in any programme yet, just private counselling.
Yeah, for some reason for me that's an important question - was this the sort of proper programme that a court would have put him into to specifically deal with violence? Or was it something else like a counsellor where the focus might have been more general?
The last thing you'd want is for this to be repeated with another incident of violence because he hasn't learnt to control himself and deal with the problem.
-
At the risk of getting side-tracked, Craig commented:
Oh, and nice to see The Standard have found a way to Blame National.
I don't think that's fair. I thought the piece fairly drew attention to the important role of the Families Commission and to the campaign to reduce violence against women. I agree it went a bit further too but many others, including Russell, have noted the unfortunate timing of National's annoucement to get rid of the Commission. That being the case, it's perfectly reasonable that someone would challenge National on how they'd work to reduce crimes against women before they're committed (I'm well aware of their views about criminal penalties).
Post your response…
This topic is closed.