“I got an apology”… said no survivor of rape or gendered violence ever
When I was 15 my cousin who lived with me and my mum would come home black and blue. Her dealer and boyfriend, Nick Ge used to beat her for whatever reason, for whatever justification he saw fit. Men who abuse always have excuses for their violence. One time he pushed her to the floor, yanked her arm up and used it for leverage while he stomped on her body from her thigh up to her neck – you could see the marks from the sole of his boot on her body. When my mum reported his crimes to the Howick police they barely did anything. We found out years later that the Police had Nick Ge on their pay roll as a paid police informant. The police where protecting an abuser.
My cousin never got an apology from the police, from her abuser, from anyone.
Last Friday, David Cunliffe apologised for being a man at the Women’s Refuge’s Symposium. He said men everywhere should feel ashamed of the epidemic levels of violence women face globally. John Key said in response that it was a “silly comment”. Cunliffe’s apology was not “silly”. His words take responsibility for the implicit role that all men play in either preventing violence against women, or perpetuating it. Silence can be deadly. Violence and rape is first and foremost a men’s issue; women are not beating or raping themselves. But it is nearly always women that take up the cause of violence prevention. Cunliffe is right. It is time for all men to “wake up, stand up, and man up and stop this bullshit”.
Mainstream media has overwhelmingly condemned Cunliffe’s apology and the predictable “not all men” arguments have ensued. Yeah. I get it. Not all men abuse. Not all men rape. Not all men are misogynists. Not all men. Not all men. Not all men. And yet most men have used sexist or degrading language against women, whether it be sexually harassing women on the street (cat calling), calling women sluts or hoes, using sexist or degrading language, or graphically describing what they would like to do sexually to a woman’s body. This all feeds into rape culture and violence against women. When you objectify women’s bodies you legitimize their abuse.
Saying “not all men” does not absolve you from the actions of other men. It does not mean you get to be excluded from the conversation. It does not mean you get a free pass to not give a shit.
As I write this I am so tired. I am tired of repeating myself. Tired of having to explain why the “not all men” arguments are damaging and not a legitimate or helpful response to discussions about violence against women. There are women on this planet who have had legs ripped out from their sockets while being raped. There are women who have been beaten so badly they have not survived. My friend was hit so hard one time she shat herself. It is hard to say anything new about the same old issues when so few people hear the voices of those who have survived. When change is incremental. When the response is so often “…not all men”. Yeah. Moving on.
When Cunliffe said sorry, some saw it as an attack on masculinity. Judith Collins, Minister for Justice (I tried not to laugh as I typed that) tweeted the following last Saturday night:
Cunliffe apologising for being a man and feeling ashamed of violent men’s actions is not an attack on masculinity. It is David publicly questioning and challenging us to think about what masculinity represents and what it means in the context of New Zealand culture. This is something we desperately need. I called for exactly this when I recently wrote on the toxic masculinity displayed by the gang rapists known as The Roast Busters. Men who rape and are violent are not aberrations. Men like those in The Roast Busters are socialised into believing a woman’s body is their sexual entitlement. This belief is shaped by a culture and a media that objectifies women’s bodies, that normalizes sexist language that plays down rape and abuse. New Zealand rape culture is a serious public health issue. As Rape Education prevention reported on their website,
“Media reporting on issues of sexual violence is often under-informed and defends public myths and misconceptions about the dynamics of sexual violence. This misinformation affects society’s shared understanding of and attitudes to sexual violence, promoting false narratives and rape-supportive attitudes in society.”
Abusive, sexist men need to lose status. Let’s start by creating a counter climate in which we, in our communities, call bullshit on other people who behave in sexist and violent ways. Cunliffe saying men should be ashamed of masculine violent behaviour was not an attempt to incite collective guilt. It was a call for collective consciousness and personal ownership of the epidemic levels of violence that women around the world face. To read it any other way is to buy into our mainstream media’s agenda, which nearly always attempts to distract us away from issues pertaining to violence against women. We are smarter than this.
John Key said, “Is he [Cunliffe] going to go down to the local rugby club and get up and say ‘I’m sorry for being a man’? I don’t think so”. This statement is evidence that Key himself adheres to damaging, negative stereotypes of masculinity – these stereotypes intersect with violence against women. Key said Cunliffe’s words were insulting to men in New Zealand. This is a silly comment. The real insult is Key insinuating that men who play rugby or who like rugby (New Zealand culture epitomises this sport as a definition of manliness) would not react well to a man like Cunliffe calling on men to stand up and join women in the fight to end violence against us.
You know we have a massive problem as a society when a man apologising for the violence men commit against women causes more outcry and insult than the violence he is apologising for.
One billion women on this planet have survived violence. One billion women are living with the aftermath of this violence; the PTSD, the nightmares, the anxiety, the isolation, the shame and stigma… the blame. When a man says sorry for the abuse women have survived, why do so many people and media sources run to defend “good, non-violent men” everywhere, but when a woman has the courage to speak about surviving her own rape or surviving violence she is shamed? Why is she asked “What where you wearing?”, “Were you drunk?”, “Did you say no?”, “Did you deserve it?” Why does no one run to her defence?
Only a rape survivor would be put on trial for her own rape.
Where is the public outcry for women who have survived gendered violence? Where is the condemnation for the everyday sexist acts and language used against women that create a climate in which some men think raping and/or hitting women is okay – It is how you prove your masculinity? But please, by all means Mr. Key and New Zealanders everywhere, continue to be offended by Cunliffe’s apology. Continue to believe the “not all men” arguments are completely valid and justified reactions to both Cunliffe’s apology and discussions around violence against women. I have lost my patience. I refuse to pander to these arguments anymore. They are not adult conversations. I have had enough.
John Key wondered “is he [Cunliffe] really sincere about that statement?” when talking about Cunliffe’s speech at the Women’s Refuge Symposium. How dare John Key call the sincerity of Cunliffe’s words into question, when Key and his Government have so little compassion or understanding for the survivors of sexual assault? When his Minister for Foreign affairs, Murray McCully, failed to protect Tania Billingsley, the woman at the centre of the Malaysian diplomat case which is currently unfolding? On 9 May 2014, Muhammad Rizalman bin Ismail, the Malaysian diplomat in question, was arrested and charged with burglary and assault with intent to rape after allegedly following Ms Billingsley home. Both Murray McCully and John Key failed to take the alleged sexual attack on Billingsley seriously, which allowed Ismail to flee back to Malaysia.
Governmental incompetency allowed Muhammad Rizalman bin Ismail to slip away under the guise of diplomatic immunity; this is a classic example of our state system and how it views sexual crimes. McCully could not even find the courage or the character to apologise to Tania personally, instead he apologised for his mistake to the New Zealand public and John Key. Months later Tania’s official written apology is “in the post”.
Perhaps Key does not know what a sincere apology looks like because his own Minister for Foreign Affairs cannot give one.
Women’s Refuge Chief Executive Heather Henare said Cunliffe’s words were “gutsy”. Many of my friends who are feminists and allies said his speech was “brave”, but I disagree. His words were necessary. They are words all men need to hear and listen to. They are words which women everywhere who have survived rape and violence have been waiting for. Tania is brave for lifting her own name suppression, for speaking publicly about the sexual assault she survived, and for calling on McCully to resign*. Tania has written an essay about rape culture in New Zealand and how McCully’s actions have impacted her. She wrote:
“Murray McCully – not only has watching and reading his response to my attack been incredibly hurtful and frustrating, I have also felt embarrassed for him. Watching a grown man try to talk his way out of responsibility at what is effectively failure at his own job is a painful thing to see. I can’t believe his incapability to admit a mistake and try to fix it rather than pointing fingers at everyone else.”
At least someone is fucking sorry. Because I do not know one woman, my cousin included, who has ever received an apology for the abuse she has survived and nearly all my female friends have either been raped, beaten, or sexually assaulted. My male friends who have survived rape have never received an apology for the trauma they’ve endured either.
We live in society that does so little to support and protect those who have survived abuse and does so much to exempt and pardon those who abuse. Isn’t it time we challenged and changed this?
*I have launched a campaign and petition demanding that Murray McCully resign, you can sign the petition and get involved here
Murray McCully Must Go Facebook page
“Saying “not all men” does not absolve you from the actions of other men. It does not mean you get to be excluded from the conversation. It does not mean you get a free pass to not give a shit.”
okay – im going out on a limb here – and im not trying to be an ass or start a flame war. And in no way should this be considered an attempt to minimise or distract from the very pertinent debate about violence (domestic, sexual and otherwise) in our society. And im not trying to defend the knuckle draggers, because they piss me off as much as any one else
Im trying really hard to word this in a way that reflects an honest attempt to be constructive and work towards good outcomes for society
Do people realise that when some men say “not all men” they arent saying the above? (but yes theres some who say not all men and mean exactly what youre describing – which makes things trickier to discuss)
They are really saying – “im not a violent sexual offender so please dont call me one” – they are using “not all men” to talk about themselves and whether they have personally commited any acts of sexual violence, because the fear they are being labelled as such for being born with a penis.
Which is of course, utterly missing the point your trying to make, but its a real and genuine gut reaction – but one which if you work past it and listen to what women are saying you can quickly forget about.
But dont first reactions matter if we are trying to achieve some sort of change and get more men onside with the collective ownership of the issue of male violence?
I understand the level of frustration and downright anger over this issue – and i unconditionally support the concept of men owning the issue of male violence.
But i wonder how far we would get if we talked causes and solutions instead of blanket blame
From a personal perspective
If you want to call me out and say i need to be part of the solution – then hell yeah! Im with you all 100%! Why? Because its true!
But if you want to say im part of the cause, without knowing anything about me or how i conduct myself in the world, solely because im genetically a man, then your going to meet a *little* bit of resistance.
Isnt that kind of thing just as bad as putting something on women because they were born women?
So – hopefully ive represented this in a way which accurately communicates one very, very small point – please dont rush to judgement on this just because theres some arseholes out there who are being less than human
(and yeah, before any one rips into me, you might say ive earned my stripes with the many very, very staunch feminists and GLBT people ive grown up around)
>They are really saying – “im not a violent sexual offender so please dont call me one”
Yeah, we get that.
The problem is that it’s just not constructive to defend yourself or your class, when your class is generally causing to much terror.
I mean, if you were really angry about the daily acts of violence and aggression, then you wouldn’t try to morally defend the oppressive class of people.
I’m male. And I’m pissed.
I’m angry at the daily acts of violence. I’m angry at the violence that doesn’t have to happen, because women are already so scared of what men are capable of and what they do. Angry at the lack of consequence for abusers.
I’m also angry at the ways in which I have contributed to the systematic violence.
That doesn’t mean that I’m ashamed of who I am as a person. But it does mean that I’m committed to standing with the oppressed.
And when survivors tell you their stories, their experiences and their emotional reactions to daily aggression, it just isn’t helpful to say “we aren’t all like that”. It does nothing to improve the situation. And it gives every excuse to the all men everywhere to simply absolve themselves individually from responsibility.
Of the zillion other possible ways to react, why choose “… but not all men”?
Why not choose to say “I’m with you. what can I do?”
Or maybe “I commit to calling my male friends out when they perpetuate rape culture”.
Or hell, why not simple shut up and listen?
“Of the zillion other possible ways to react, why choose “… “but not all men”?”
this is the gut reaction
“Why not choose to say “I’m with you. what can I do?”
this is the considered reaction
And if its such an understood thing – why does it keep being mis-understood?
“Or hell, why not simple shut up and listen?” –
which is exactly my point – if we want other men to actually listen we need to stop condeming them based on the gut reaction alone.
Which is why im suggesting all of us might get further in this if we stop slinging genetic blame and talk solutions
but just for the record – i actually agree with whats being said here.
I just see a lot of talking past each other when those three words come up. The result of which seems to be more counter productive than anything else
I’ve also noticed that those men who decry Cunliffe’s words generally use demeaning words about women to do so. They don’t know what they don’t know.
true – and theres also reacting to what cunliffe said, and reacting to what the media says cunliffe said
both of those are two very different things which leads to even more talking past each other
Yes.
And of course, lets not forget about the subject matter he was talking about.
It’s on the public table now lets keep it there so this very serious violence issue against women and children can be fixed once and for all.
Lets move it out of, and keep it out of the political trough that the media are trying to silence it in.
lets get it fixed!
‘John Key said, “Is he [Cunliffe] going to go down to the local rugby club and get up and say ‘I’m sorry for being a man’? I don’t think so”.’
Galling, isn’t it? As if John Key ever set foot in a fucking rugby club in his life until he became a politician.
Key would have loved the rugby club that the eight guys belonged to who raped and severely bashed a gay friend of mine. Those guys would never apologise for being men. Sometimes I think rugby union is at least half the problem in our country – from sexual violence to racism, it has so often been on the wrong side.
When the reaction of men to discussion of sexual violence is “not all men” then they most definitely are part of the problem.
When their reaction is to defend themselves, and they see that as more important, when their reaction is to make it about them, and not about how we can get rid of sexual violence, then yeah, they’re part of the problem.
Women have been saying loudly for a long time that sexual violence needs to stop. But those who commit sexual violence don’t listen to women.
Thats why the “not all men” defensive dudes need to get over themselves and start speaking out in support of victims of violence.
Another good piece Chloe. I feel your exhaustion. I’m exhausted too. This is hard.
And finally, does anyone know whats happening to Christchurch Rape Crisis? Has it received funding to stay open or has it closed?
Not sure about Chch Rape Crisis, but I believe Chch Womens’ Refuge has closed because the Govt withdrew funding in the budget. So much for Paula Benefit’s “extra funding for Womens’ Refuges” that she claimed on The Nation this morning.
Hey Lara thanks so much for reading my stuff and your kind words <3
Good on you Chloe, can someone please put the link to the whole of Cunliffe’s speech or the video link if one exists. I can’t find it anywhere. I can only find the bit the media put out there not the whole thing. The media has a lot to answer for in misinterpreting what, how and the why’s of this really serious and heavy issue. Instead we get nasty typical bullying of the media and the Nats who don’t give a shit about anything at all unless it turns a buck, if they can make Cunliffe look stupid along the way they are all in glee, it is embarrassing to watch people running our country behaving like spoilt nasty brats, they have no respect. It’s pathetic!
@Kate:
Its on radiolive via TV3.
Women and children who have or are, the victims of male violence and rape, need others to help them, as dealing with the fixing of the culture “triggers” memories in them, and this can make it nearly impossible to defend themselves in the public arena, due to the psychological state they are put in once the ‘triggers’ are stimulated.
Society needs to fix it for us please.
We have our horror stories – hopefully hidden away inside of us, so others can’t see – but this inner state is revealed when ‘triggered’, and then we can be labelled as nuts – because that’s what actually happens everywhere but the Rape Crisis Centers. Just knowing another Rape Crisis Center is being shut down is enough to be a trigger – knowing that the only avenue of hope has been removed.
We cannot expect help from NZ Police – as proven.
We cannot expect help from ACC (our supposed carers) – as proven.
We cannot expect help from our government – as proven.
We need the help of good people. People who believe us. People who care enough to fight the fight for us when the fight, or indeed the thought of the fight, triggers us into not being able to function properly.
We need other people who have not had these experiences, to hold our hand, and to fight on our behalf.
This is the help we need.
Rape and domestic violence is a hard ugly subject, and this is why it isn’t resolved. When people who have been blessed with a non-violent life decide to reach out to help, they become overwhelmed by the stories they hear from the survivors, and decide they cannot cope with the helping.
These Rape Crisis centers must make their voices louder, as these are really the ONLY organised groups who actually help the victims. We need more of them, not less. Bless all the volunteers there.
Opinion and belief.
The Christchurch Rape Crisis centre was forced to close down for want of $30,000. That shows how seriously Key and McCully take this issue.
Rio Tinto got it instead.
This just out from Greens: https://www.greens.org.nz/justice
McCully mustn’t shirk scrutiny during inquiry
The inquiry into Foreign Affairs’ handling of allegations of attempted rape by a Malaysian diplomat must investigate all the actions taken by Murray McCully during this fiasco, Green Party Co-leader Metiria Turei said today.
A Ministerial inquiry has been launched into the way the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade (MFAT) handled the case involving a Malaysian diplomat. However, the terms of reference do not extend to what actions Mr McCully took in relation to the case.
“The terms of reference for this inquiry are very specific when it comes to investigating the actions of MFAT officials,” Mrs Turei said.
“Unfortunately the terms of reference fail to hold the Minister of Foreign Affairs to account.
“These terms of reference must be upgraded to cover all the actions, or more to the point inactions, taken by Mr McCully.
“Mr McCully has been known as a micro-manager throughout his career.
“Now, the New Zealand public is being asked to believe that Mr McCully allowed a New Zealand citizen to be denied justice and a major diplomatic fiasco to evolve, while he sat on his hands.
“The inquiry needs to be wide enough to investigate whether or not Mr McCully was guilty of incompetence or something worse.
“Mr McCully’s line so far has been that he did nothing wrong. If that is correct, then he should open the investigation up to include his own actions.
“New Zealanders expect those in power to take responsibility when things go wrong.
“The Prime Minister shouldn’t be relaxed about this inquiry. He needs to make sure his Minister’s actions are properly scrutinised,” said Mrs Turei.
Subject: Justice
I did actually get an apology once, from a senior cop whose eyes were tearing up as he told me there wasn’t enough evidence to successfully prosecute, because as he acknowledged, had the police reacted immediately, the guy would be convicted. Didn’t stop me from laying an IPCA complaint though, the good cop at the end will never make up for the bad cops in the beginning….
Amen Chloe. Well said!
I just needed to share this informative article, and I hope you will take the time to read it, because it is all true:
“ok so just to do some clarification on Fairway Resolution aka DRSL the crown-owned company.
FairWay Resolution (www.drsl.co.nz), is a crown-owned company which originated as a division of the Accident Compensation Corporation and carries out reviews of claims against Accident Compensation Corporation by accident compensation claimants.
See:
DISPUTE RESOLUTION SERVICE CHANGES NAME TO FAIRWAY RESOLUTION
http://www.fairwayre…me%20Change.pdf
“The company began as a division of the Accident Compensation Corporation, carrying out reviews of claims against the Corporation by accident compensation claimants. Incorporated in 1999 as a stand-alone entity under the ownership of ACC, it became an independent Crown-owned Company in 2011.”…
and
…”FairWay Resolution manages the legislated decision review system for the Accident Compensation Corporation (ACC). We also provide alternative dispute resolution services to the ACC, such as facilitation and mediation. For more, see our ACC reviews and disputes section.”
Now, I cant stress this enough if people cant get this and I really want people to take a minute and honestly think about this. The above by itself totally negates any logical perspective of independent and objective investigation, analysis or “fair” mediation process. In fact it shows emphatically that FairWay Resolution, the crown-owned company, is actually fronting as being an “independent” mediation organisation that has conflicts of interest through its direct connection to the Accident Compensation Corporation, both being commissioned and funded by the crown as government agencies defending government agencies.
How do people not get this?
You see what they have done is compartmentalized ACC into a section designed to defend itself, then changed their name (a couple of times – doesn’t ‘Fairway Resolution’ have a nice sound to it? Good job the public relations department). This is designed to give what is commonly referred to as “illusion of choice.” So just to explain this in more detail.
A corporation divides itself in two and sets up a “good cop versus bad cop” scenario situation. This is where the two parties are actually one in the same, one acting as the “Savior” for the claimant against the other which represents the corporation, when in fact they BOTH work for the same higher agenda up the ladder (or pyramid if you like to use that symbology). So in order for this to work and to sell this to you they really need to distance themselves from the original corporation. This is called a “distancing” technique and it operates to provide the facade of separation and dissociation. For example someone might call themselves “so over sensitiveclaimsunit” in order to distance themselves from the Sensitive Claims Unit so that sexual abuse victims will find a connection and such a name appealing when looking for help. These are predatory – prey mentality techniques. So anyway these things are a set-up designed for people to buy into, it doesnt work unless you believe in it and they appear to look truly independent, objective and to have your best interests at heart etc. Political parties do this all the time when its all corporate controlled. Remember ministers only ever administer duties/policies on behalf of the crown, they are public relations frontmen (think about that when you vote next).
So after making inquiries with Fairway Resolutions it became evident that even the crown owned company FairWay Resolution does not even have the ability to investigate complaints within its own departments (in exactly the same manner ACC is incapable of doing so within its own departments) independently and objectively, nor is it capable of performing a fair mediation process or evaluating client complaints against the Accident Compensation Corporation with their appointed judges (actually lawyers) that are trained through the ACC/FairWay Resolution for defending ACC against claimants. The whole “mediation process” is a sham and a fraud, so don’t expect any mediation as its basically just lawyers working as ACC employees (and ACC don’t even bother to show up as themselves, they do the whole show through telecommunications – which courts have not been impressed by at all). The Fairway mediator is to be considered acting as the designated ACC representative for this process.
To be taken into consideration by the claimant is the fact that Accident Compensation Corporation does not even bother to physically turn up to these mediations, only doing them via phone conferencing (which is an insult especially to an SCU client – at least their sexual perpetrators looked them in the face while they were being …) and also that ACC/Fairway Resolution have given themselves the right to record the “mediation” for their own purposes, however for you the claimant NO media and/or journalists are allowed and are forbidden from attending, etc etc the list goes on (not to mention the claimants that are institutionalised and funds are recovered from). So again and again these do not reflect anything fair in a mediation process but simply a fixed one-sided approach on behalf of the corporation, definitely not the client – lets not kid ourselves here.
Having repeatedly requested for the contact details of the an independent complaints investigator for Fairway Resolution to be provided through a telephone
conversation with Magnus 04-918-4974, Resolution Co-ordinator this information was not available instead referring me to Hannes 09-915-8220, General Manager. So
please, I really encourage people to think and do their own research. Please ring Magnus 04-918-4974, Resolution Co-ordinator and Hannes 09-915-8220, General Manager and ask the appropriate questions. I have already given the answers you will recieve.
The corporation is so rife with corrupt individuals as are advocates on this site, but if you know what to look for you can avoid learning from your own mistakes (learn from others its easier!). Many of these people are already predisposed towards psychopathic personality disorders, simply meaning they are limited in compassion towards others and have a predatory mentality to vulnerable prey/victims. These individuals also have characteristics involving control over others, psychological bullying, are demeaning and condescending and any promises they make are often not backed up by actions (always remember actions speak louder than words).
The higher up the corporate ladder/pyramid the more extreme the psychopathic personality disorder becomes. This is an actual requirement for advancing and I am being serious. If you doubt the use of the word “psychopathic” just remember that ACC uses dr Felicity Goodyear-Smith as an ACC advisor of matters of sexual abuse knowing full well her connections to child sex abuse paedophile trafficking rings such as the Centrepoint commune/cult and her relationships with convicted child sex offenders, her making such statments as “children seek out sex with adults” and that she has been used to legally defend child sex abusers in courts of law. What else do you really need to know? This is called covering-up child sex abuse pedophilia by crown corporations. Lets not bandy words here, they know it, I know it and so should everyone else, especially SCU clients, as they are continually being re-victimised by the ACC SCU corporation. Psychopathic personality disorders and pedophilia go hand-in-hand, both being mutually inclusive, are to be found together as companions. I sincerely hope people grasp the magnitude of this as some do appear to be finding this difficult to comprehend.
Conflicting interests? Felicity Goodyear-Smith – BY TIM HUME
http://www.stuff.co….cting-interests
How Powerful (New Zealand) Families Groom Children For Sex & Cover it up KAREN “ATLANTIS” ROSE 6 February 2014
http://www.thevinnye…n-atlantis-rose
These psychopathic personality disorders are not just limited to assessors such as jan reeves, peter dean, senior peer reviewer john collier etc (who just reference each others assessments back and forth), these are just the ones that ACC use to fabricate the material to get SCU claimants on the Exit Strategy and child sexual abuse documentation off the record. There are data analysts who have and are collating the patterns and techniques employed by these people. They all have their own roles, even case managers who if they cant hack it or don’t have required characteristics, tend to have a very high turnover rate. It is all a very well executed process and these kind of people are on this forum also, they’re not hard to find. Just take note of how they treat and react to people when they get angry and stressed out or how they treat you once you have been used and you see just how they compromise the masquerade they put on and show their true Natures. These people themselves will often find themselves sold out by those above them (because that’s just how the psychopathic parasitical pyramid works).
Don’t believe me, do your own homework.
If you have negative experiences with such people and corporations please step-up and warn others so that they do not have to be abused in this process. Had we been aware of this I would have insisted my wife would NEVER have seen an ACC counselor for therapy to help with her dealing with lifelong childhood sexual abuse within recognized (within legal court) New Zealand pedophilia rings in the first instance.
Also don’t let the experiences through dealing with this corporation make you loose sleep or affect your health, don’t let them get the best of you – its just not worth that much 😉
“The world is a dangerous place to live; not because of the people who are evil, but because of the people who don’t do anything about it.” – Albert Einstein
references:
http://accforum.org/forums/index.php?/topic/16378-who-and-what-is-fairway-resolution/page__pid__186400#entry186400
http://accforum.org/forums/index.php?/topic/16379-conflicting-interests-required-reading-for-all-sensitive-claims-unit-clients/
Opinion and belief