Myth Busting Rape Boasters

November 1, 2014

In just one week a case that galvanised a nation into discussing rape culture is now being reframed as mischievous teen hi-jinx.

One year ago the Roast Busters case came to the attention of the media and the public. This week we hear the devastating news that the police have failed to gather enough evidence to press charges. In the five days that have followed the dialling down of the language and the reframing of the issue begins again. In fact, after a mere media news cycle, the reframing and altering of the discourse is so complete it would be easy to forget what this case was actually about.

Let’s have a quick recap.

It was about men, seventeen to twenty five year olds getting young, often under the age girls trashed for the express purpose of shagging them and then bragging about it online.
It was about girls, young girls, reporting they had been raped to the police. It was about a failure by police to investigate, due to what they termed as some communication problems. It was about victim blaming by the police and some media. Then this weeks news that the police investigation did not obtain enough evidence to lay charges.
However, what the investigation did not do, in any way, was prove that the men involved were innocent.

Yet within a week the narrative has become about underage drinking and sex education for teens. Those crazy unruly kids. I just listened to Willy Jackson and Deborah Coddington dilute it to a conversation about liquor licensing. Coddington claiming that when she was young there was no access to booze. Too many outlets and too much binge drinking. This was the problem. Obviously Debs and I were raised in different worlds, because when I was fifteen a bottle of Chardon was $4.90 and it wasn’t hard to get. The only thing that’s changed from what I can see is the selection has improved.

But here’s the thing, when I was a teenager and getting drunk I’m positive I knew that it was wrong for anyone to get me drunk and try and have sex with me or my friends. It was wrong then and it’s still wrong and I have faith that a majority of our teenagers know that. In fact I bet those guys who were accused knew that.

Teenagers know that getting their friends fucked up and then having sex with them and then posting about it online, is wrong. What is also wrong is treating them as if they are stupid and have no agency or responsibility. By doing that you become complicit in continuing the practice of diluting the dialogue that is responsible for perpetuating rape culture.

Earlier this year we saw a similar response to the allegations made by Tania Billingsly, whose alleged attacker was sent back to Malaysia. Oops.

The response, like now was to play down the language and then attack Billingsly for speaking publicly. The attacks came from all quarters and they were shameful. It is this same kind of shift in language that we are seeing now. On social media, the msm and of course alive and kicking on the talk back stations is the response of the anti-feminist and the equally offensive equality apologists.The rape culture denial begins again and I am thoroughly pissed off.

I have been angry and getting angrier for a while. While I expect to hear anti-feminist rednecks talking to Sean Plunket or anonymously trolling on the Twitter, there are some places I don’t expect to hear it. Just after the Tania Billingsly case became public I read a blog by an academic that was titled “New Zealand’s Rape Culture Myth.” The article was written by Jarrod Gilbert. I was gutted. It takes a bit of courage to go from citing someone to slagging their opinions, but damn it, I’ve reached that point and really, I think on this topic, he was wrong.

Gilbert’s blog sums up all that is wrong with the discourse around crimes of sexual violence in New Zealand. He claims that the term ‘rape culture’ is being used incorrectly. To para-phrase he basically says yes, we have a problem with sexual abuse but the term ‘rape culture’ is a misnomer. He goes as far to say that ‘by over-egging the cake the people who use the term do a disservice to the important cause of addressing sexual violence.’

Initially I discounted the blog as just another academic splitting definitive hairs over language. But the more I thought about it, and now with the conversation around the Rape Busters being undermined and hi-jacked again, I’m more pissed off that I was before…
The great thing is you can always find a better definition.

Here’s my pick for a definition that describes the rape culture in New Zealand.

‘ A society that accepts sexual violence and the fear of violence as the norm. A society that, knowingly or not, perpetuates models of masculinity, femininity and sexuality that foster aggression, violence and fear.’

Emilie Buchwald (1993) Transforming A Rape Culture. Minneapolis,MN: Milkweed Editions.

Gilbert’s last sentence is the claim that the use of the phrase is ‘not just inaccurate, it’s also unhelpful.’ Unhelpful to whom? Why do you want to down play it? Who benefits from redefining the discourse, Mr Gilbert?

For those that will argue my definition in terms of New Zealand culture, perhaps arguing that as a society we do not accept sexual violence, let me say this. Every time we don’t condemn it, by either our actions or our language, we condone it. Every time we don’t name it for what it is we fail to own it. If we fail to own it we will never change it.

It isn’t just Gilbert the academic. There is also the guy on my Twitter feed who said

@WayneJBurrows: girls and boys engaged in underage sex. Who are the victims?

So let me make this clear.This blog is about language. It is about the language that is being used to manipulate and control the discourse around rape and sexual abuse. It is about people not wanting to attribute an ugly name to an ugly act, but lets be honest. This wasn’t kids messing around on a voyage of self discovery giving each other hickeys.
This was abuse and humiliation perpetuated by older men on vulnerable girls.
The only people that benefit from reframing this as a teen prank gone wrong are those that accept this behaviour as the norm. That is a rape culture.

TDB Recommends NewzEngine.com

Workers rights weakened by new laws – fightback needed

Mike Treen

November 1, 2014

The government’s changes to the employment laws are designed to weaken workers bargaining power – at both the individual and collective level.

30-day rule

The old law required an employer with a collective agreement in place to employ new staff on the terms of the collective for the first 30-days. This was seen as protecting the collective from being undermined by employing new staff on inferior conditions. With only 9% of the private sector workforce in unions , only a minority or workplaces in the private sector will have collective employment agreements. Even where they exist, like in the fast food industry where Unite has half its members, we often only have a minority or workers as members because the industry is 24-7 in small sites scattered across the country with a 100% annual staff turnover and usually with hostile owners.

This is hard to do in a minimum wage industry. It has been hard to move companies off that rate as a start rate. However we have succeeded in getting some steps built into the agreement for after six months or one year. A real danger would exist if a company offered staff a start rate that was higher than the collective but without some of the service steps that would apply later. Workers would be tempted to take the higher rate and not join the union and therefore the collective.

Breaks

The current legal right to a 10-minute paid break for shifts of two to 6 hours and a second plus a 30 minute unpaid break for shifts of four or more hours is being removed. The worker also loses the right to nominate that the shifts are spread evenly through their shifts. The employers obligation now is simply “provide [you] with a reasonable opportunity for rest, refreshment, and attending to personal matters” that is “appropriate for the duration of [your] work period.” When these breaks are taken is by agreement or failing that at the employers discretion. When an employer feels they can’t provide you with a break (or you agree) then they must compensate you for the loss with at least an equivalent.

Luckily nearly all the Unite Union collective employment agreements have the old legal requirements incorporated in them. In addition our agreements have a paid 15-minute break rather than the 10 minutes that had been in the law. But it has been a fact of life that it is difficult to enforce the agreements around breaks because workers are made to feel they are letting the team down if (as is often the case) the shop or workplace is understaffed. By making it a law in 2008 it gave workers more courage to assert their rights.

One small positive aspect of the new law is the assertion of the need for some sort of at least equivalent compensation if you miss your entitlement. In the past many workers will have worked through their paid breaks without compensation but now there is an obligation on the employer to at least provide equivalent paid time off. We actually had one employer argue in the employment authority that because workers were paid when working through their paid break there was no disadvantage.

Removing a duty to conclude bargaining

It is no longer a breach of the duty of good faith not to conclude bargaining. To be honest I don’t understand that this changes anything for Unite. We have had a couple of employers who were determined to refuse to conclude bargaining, and we lacked the strength to force them to do so, and we do not have a collective. I am not sure a legal case would have changes that reality. I suspect this clause is connected to the ones below which allow companies to terminate bargaining in certain circumstances.

The Employment Relations Authority can determine that bargaining has concluded

An employer or a union can apply to the employment relations authority for a determination that bargaining has concluded. If the authority accepts the application and agrees then bargaining is terminated for 60 days before bargaining can be initiated again (unless the other side agrees).

This means than an industrial action becomes illegal and must be terminated.

Employers can use the law to scuttle an industrial campaign and workers who lose momentum often find it hard to resolve to begin action again. However, there may be occasions, such as a protracted lockout, where a union could use the law in the same way.

The draft law has been changed to make simply not wanting an agreement insufficient grounds to refuse one. There are some reasonable hurdles before an employer can get the authority to rule in its favour. The authority can also demand further mediation or facilitation to help the parties reach an agreement. Bad faith behaviour invalidates an application.

All strikes will require notice

All unions will have to give notice of strikes. Currently only essential services have. There is not notice period specified however.

Employers able to opt out of multi-employer bargaining.

The new law allows any employer to refuse to be party to multi-employer bargaining. This had been a very weak aspect of the current law anyway and few multi-employer agreements were reached without the employers also wanting it.

Removed protections for some of the most vulnerable workers.

Currently some vulnerable groups of workers like cleaning and food services have their existing wages and conditions protected when being contracted out to another employer. This will no longer be the case if it is small employer with fewer than 20 employees. It won’t be clear for some time if this clause is actually used in many contracting out situations and leads to a race to the bottom. Most of the changes to this section of the Act actually apply to employers who had been refusing to give the new employer information about their employees out of spite when losing a contract.

Partial wage deductions

If workers take partial strike action like a go slow, then the employers can deduct what they estimate to have lost (difficult if not impossible) or a fixed amount of 10%. Notice must be given of any deduction.

Reducing access to information in a restructure

New limits have been put on information that a worker can ask to see when they have been subject to a process that results in their being made redundant. This follows a court decision in 2011 which had expanded an employees rights.

Flexible working arrangement

The one progressive change to the current law is the extension of the right to apply for “flexible” working arrangements to all workers, not just those with dependants. Workers can apply immediately after starting work and there are no limits on the number of applications in a year. Employers responbse time is reduced from three to one month maximum.

Employers have a “duty to consider” seriously any requests from their employees. So, employers have a legal obligation to consider an employee’s request carefully.

I think unions should be looking for opportunities for workers to use this law to ask for more secure hours at regular times rather than all the “flexibility” being on the employers side.

Workers and unions need to fight

Too many workers and their unions have lost a first hand knowledge or experience of what is possible when workers are on the front foot and have the confidence to stand up to their bosses. One consequence of that is the appalling number of deaths in sectors like forestry or workplaces like Tauranga Port which have suffered the worst of deregulation, casualisations an deunionisation. Workers need to demand a safe and rewarding job, as well as decent wages and working conditions. The main problem unions in this country have have had is not the unfair legal framework but an unwillingness to stand up and fight for our rights. These laws will make our legal position weaker in some respects. But a determined struggle can overcome these barriers and others the employers and their government throw at us. Workers deserve RESPECT!

TDB Recommends NewzEngine.com

GUEST BLOG: Simon Buckingham – Where are Labour Candidates on disability?

The Daily Blog

November 1, 2014

For the few people who know me (hello Mum), I am proudly New Zealand’s first Autistic Spectrum Lawyer, as well as being the very bottom Candidate on the Labour Party List. (64 out of 64). Being honoured like this is touching, and when I made the List, I promised to speak for the disabled community. Today is where it gets uncomfortable.

I wrote a question to the three Leadership Candidates who threw their hats into the ring quickly. This was before Nanaia Mahuta fronted up, so being fair, she did not get the question till today.

This is a copy and paste of the e-mail sent on 3 October:

Dear David, Andrew and Grant (in no specific order).

I wish to ask a question that I intend to post on Facebook in regards to the Leadership race:

Given that:

1. Labour core values are based upon inclusion and equal opportunity for all, and
2. Labour considers the number of people with disabilities during selection, and
3. Labour has not had an MP with a disability since Norm Kirk,

what does equal opportunity mean for you, and what are you going to do to encourage and foster more disability access and representation within Labour and Caucus as Leader?

I would be honoured if you felt able to answer this question by e-mail so I can then post it. Whilst I am honoured and privileged to know all three of you, and to know that whoever succeeds will be an excellent Leader, we are a badly disenfranchised group that needs a voice.

I am asking this on my own recognisance, and purely and solely as a Labour Party member and candidate.

May the best person win!

Many thanks

Simon Buckingham

Sadly, not one of the three I wrote to felt that disability issues are worth responding to. Not one reply. I know that they are busy, but this was sent four weeks ago, which is plenty of time to reply. However, having received the question today, Nanaia has answered within a few hours. Whilst her answer is not ideal, I admire it for honesty and openness. Also, for promptness. Her answer can be found on my Candidate page on Facebook. I am not totally in accord with the answer, but at least it gets some debate going around this sorely neglected issue.

I have a few facts for our Leadership Candidates who have failed to answer. I know all to be great people who bring some amazing qualities to Caucus and Labour. Nanaia is a by-word in loyalty. Andrew is passionate abour the Unions and justice, David is a fiscal genius who puts his money where his mouth is, and Grant is the ultimate Labour stalwart. Whoever succeeds would be a good Leader (though I still feel that David Cunliffe is the best PM we never had). However, if you want to succeed long term, you NEED our vote.

We are 24% of New Zealand society. Everyone in New Zealand is affected by disability in one way or another. We are not les imbeciles blithereaux who sit in a corner dribbling, just like accessibility does not just mean wheelchair access (though this is a vital issue). We are a vast cross-section of society that also tends towards the left politically. If united, we could have got the left into Government this election. However, whilst David Cunliffe fronted up and even sponsored the Kirk (disability) Sector of the Labour Party in his New Lynn Electorate before replacing David Shearer, no-one else going for Leadership has spoken for us.

Is Labour about lip service or do we really believe in equal opportunities to succeed? With a significant proportion of our community disenfranchised (unable to vote) anyway, unless real and significant support and opportunity is given, we are nothing but hypocrites.

I am Labour because I do believe. I can see a groundswell of change. However, I stood for the List based upon disability, and unless I speak up loudly and clearly, I am also a hypocrite in for my own interests. Therefore, my message is either include us, recognise us, and give us a voice, or lose our support to whoever will give us a voice. This is not a threat. I am solidly Labour. This is a painful truth and prediction.

Andrew, David and Grant – Please could you answer this question above? Thank you.

TDB Recommends NewzEngine.com

GUEST BLOG: Blockade the Budget

The Daily Blog

October 31, 2014

The ‘Independent’ Police Conduct Authority’s report into the policing of student protests in 2012 is a whitewash

The report released by the Independent Police Conduct Authority into the policing of student protests in 2012 is a whitewash riddled with inaccuracies.

The report, released today, has taken over 2 years for the Authority to complete and release, which raises serious questions about the competency of the IPCA.

The IPCA has shown itself to be incredibly reluctant to criticise police behaviour, despite finding the police breached numerous protocols, and it largely relies on police testimony in justifying police behavious.

The report also fails to adequately address rights to protest under the Bill of Rights and fails to define the limits of what is “reasonable” in terms of the use of force against demonstrators.

The report fails to criticise the use of “open palm strikes” and the “mastoid thumb pressure control technique” which involves “exerting pain by applying pressure with the knuckle of the fingers to the cavity in the head between the mastoid process and the jawbone”, and accepts de facto the police’s use of these techniques against demonstrators.

The report claims, based on police testimony, that students were allowed to march on the street and the first arrests did not occur until students sat down on the road and were told by police to move.

However video evidence provided to the IPCA in 2012 shows police telling protestors they would be allowed to march on the street.

The video evidence goes on to show that the first arrest was made before the protest march had begun, when police arrested a demonstrator who was attempting to lead the march on to the street.

The report also claims, in justifying the presence of 50 police officers, that approximately 300 students were part of the march, however the protest was in reality made up of approximately 100 students.

The false claim by police is used in the IPCA’s report to justify the heavy presence of police.

The IPCA has taken police claims at face value despite video evidence to the contrary, calling into question its independence and competency.

The report raises significant issues around the competency of the IPCA, through numerous inaccuracies and its failure to adequately address people’s right to protest.

As anyone who witnessed the protest will have clearly seen, despite what Judge Carruthers of the IPCA has been told by his mates in the police force, the police response was an unreasonable, violent, and disproportionate example of the suppression of dissent in this country.

Jai Bentley-Payne From Blockade the Budget

TDB Recommends NewzEngine.com

When National claim new anti worker laws provide ‘flexibility’ they mean spine snapping

Martyn Bradbury

October 31, 2014

And so it comes to pass. The first law National ram through as part of their victory march are new anti worker laws they pretend will generate ‘flexibility’.

The new law denigrate the unions ability to protect workers and provide the ability to remove tea breaks for ‘flexibility’ purposes despite a recent report that shows NZ is one of the easiest places to do business.

All this law will do is weaken Unions which in turn will weaken worker rights which in turn will push wages down, not up.

The nation of the egalitarian dream has been mutilated by 30years of neoliberalism into an inequality nightmare. The sick joke of the 40 hour working week tastes even more bitter in the week we celebrated Labour Day.

This law is nothing more than triumphalism by National, it is needles ideological knife twisting and NZers voted for it.

TDB Recommends NewzEngine.com

City Transport: A Taxing Matter

Keith Rankin

October 31, 2014

This week the prospect of paying tolls on Auckland motorways became a hot topic. (See Mathew Dearnaley:Motorway tolling could hit some hard, NZ Herald, 30 Oct 2014.) As we might expect, the kneejerk response has been quite negative. But, as with most such matters, the issues around the problem are heavily nuanced, and the proposed solution (or something like it) may be a good idea if the circumstances are right.

So, what is the problem? It’s presented as a purely financial matter. Auckland must have projects x,y,z and the financial shortfall must be funded somehow by Aucklanders. In reality these projects are a mix of near-necessities and outright un-necessities. We dithered for 30 years on completing the western ring-road – a clear necessity – and may well dither on the two future projects that Auckland really does need.

In my view, Auckland needs the city rail loop, and it needs a second Harbour crossing, given the age of the present bridge clip-ons. The “holiday highway” from Wellsford to Boohai (Puhoi) is also an important project for the people of Northland, and should be funded as a national project, not as an Auckland project.

Other city roading projects are not needed, and that probably also applies for the next twenty years to other rail projects. So let’s just focus on these two: Rail Loop, Harbour Crossing. (Other possible motorways are more likely to be ‘needed’ only if Government housing policy creates further ridiculous urban sprawl. Kaukapakapa – or Puhoi – could, I guess, become the new Botany!)

These two projects are public goods that benefit all Aucklanders, including those who will not use them. Thus they should be funded by a mixture of rates and taxes, spread out over the projected lives of these projects by Government and Council borrowing, and constructed during periods that would otherwise be recessions. Both of these projects should be ‘shovel-ready’ by 2018, about the time that the next bust in private sector construction is likely to occur. It’s not rocket-economics.

Congestion and Lifestyle

However, Auckland traffic has a very real problem, right now. It’s the congestion that occurs regularly in motorway system, and in suburban roads (especially roads close to motorway on-ramps). Economics 101 has a simple means of managing this problem, it’s called a congestion tax.

Congestion taxes should be introduced as soon as possible, but at a low rate (eg $2) initially, and only between7:30 and 9am, in the Spaghetti Junction area, in the Harbour Bridge city-bound lanes, in the Northwestern motorway citybound from St Lukes, and in the Southern Motorway citybound from Greenlane. (I would exempt unambiguous business traffic in vehicles such as busses, trucks, vans and utes; not company cars.)

The principal purpose of the tax is to change people’s lifestyle in both the short and the long term. As a strictly secondary purpose, revenue raised can contribute to the two projects identified, offsetting the need to borrow. (The Green Party has the right idea on congestion taxes, but should not seek to rely on taxing ‘bads’ for revenue. Taxing alcohol for revenue means that we have to nurture the alcohol industry.)

The first lifestyle change that such taxes facilitate is to remind commuters that there are public transport alternatives, and that the roads are there principally for business transport, not for commuting. The second lifestyle change is that such taxes encourage car-pooling. The third change is that employers – who we know are very fond of ‘flexibility’ – may facilitate in-bound commuting at other times of the day. Further, genuinely flexible employers will share any extra commuting costs incurred by employees who must come to work via these routes during the morning commuter peak.

Longer term lifestyle changes being signalled will be for the development of housing types that dovetail with public transport. Thus the issues of Auckland housing and Auckland transport are really a single issue.

Sadly, the housing issue is usually framed in terms of helping people onto the ‘property ladder’, rather than in terms of ensuring that people are securely and healthily housed in places that do not require excessive commuting. (The present government incessantly frames the housing issue as if houses were principally a financial asset, with the concept of an actual dwelling being a mere afterthought. The government should have no view about whether owner-occupation ghettos ‘up the boohai’ are or are not better than more practically located rented accommodation.)

A critically important part of resolving Auckland’s traffic issues is to facilitate the choice to live closer to work. And, it’s about recognising that cities like Auckland have (or should have) a young and mobile working population. (Today’s teenagers do not aspire to live independently in the suburbs and drive 9-5 to work. They don’t even aspire to own cars in the way that previous generations of young people did.)

So, in my view, both the Auckland Council and the Government should be promoting the concept of congestion tolls, set initially at low levels, but set to rise as alternative transport options improve and as alternative housing options emerge, in large part from the market forces created.

City Housing

My principal transport policy is, however, for Council and Government to reform the private sector urban rental housing market.

This reform means creating a mixture of carrots and sticks to ensure that houses and other dwellings within the Auckland isthmus are neither unoccupied nor under‑occupied. (I would love to hear – in the ‘comments’ below – anecdotes about houses recently purchased for megabucks that are presently empty, or are occupied by significantly fewer people than they were designed to house.) Housing supply is not just about building houses; it is also about making proper use of the stock that we already have. We have comprehensive statistics about labour supply; we likewise need good statistics about what happens to houses that are purchased more as financial assets than as dwellings.

The second part of this reform is to establish a warrant of fitness for all rental housing, and other housing that ought to be part of the private rental stock. Such warrant of fitness testing should be subsidised.

The third part of the reform is for Labour to replace the ‘capital gains tax’ idea with a ‘property speculation tax’ similar to that introduced by the Third Labour Government in its 1973 Budget.

Adjacent to a property-speculation tax would be legislation to require landlords to declare to tenants if there is aprospect of a rented house having to be vacated in the next 12 months, regardless of the maturity of tenancy. (For example a 12-month tenancy should be presumed to be a roll-over tenancy unless the tenant gives, on signing, notice of intended vacation at the end of the tenancy.) Thus tenants could negotiate lower rents in exchange for heightened insecurity. Landlords who decide to sell at short notice without prior warning would be required to compensate their tenants. The cost of rented housing escalates significantly when the landlord is an active property speculator.

Conclusion

Auckland is an emerging world-city, with many employment opportunities not present in other parts of the country. The externalities around both transport and housing can be resolved in orthodox ways that make full use of the price-mechanism that is at the core of economics.

Do we want a proper world city, or an overgrown country town? We need more young people living and working near to their places of employment – walking, cycling, bussing, training or ferrying to work – engaged with their communities through an efficient rental housing market. That’s capitalism the way I like it. Congestion pricing facilitates ‘good’ capitalism; Green capitalism.

TDB Recommends NewzEngine.com

MEDIA WATCH: Does ‘No-Surprises’ Also Apply To TVNZ News?

The Daily Blog

October 31, 2014

When you stand back and look at NZ media outlets, most of them have at least one or two people who attempt to hold the government to account: John Campbell on TV3, Guyon Espiner and others at Radio NZ, David Fisher in the Herald, Andrea Vance at Stuff…

TVNZ doesn’t.

TVNZ News reports adequately on the events of the day. They’re generally unbiased apart from obvious clangers like choosing Mike Hosking to moderate Election Debates and choosing Mike Hosking to host NZ’s foremost daily current affairs show. Apart from that, TVNZ follows a safe path.

What’s noticeable on TVNZ is the lack of serious criticism or investigation of the government. They haven’t taken the lead on a government scandal. They don’t pursue, hound or even take serious aim at the government. Not in any of the daily news shows, not on the website, not in its comedy shows and not even in its current affairs. The closest I can think of was Nigel Latta’s programme on child poverty, which never actually drew the connection between rising poverty and and policies of the government.

Why is this? Could it be a result of the government’s famous no-surprises policy? It’s not just a recent thing. Plenty of right-wingers thought TVNZ was scandalously left-wing under the Clark government and perhaps they were right (by that I mean correct).

Whether the government be left or right flavoured, it is vitally important that TVNZ is politically neutral. Government influence on the state broadcaster is not only morally wrong, it’s against the law.

Although the Minister of Broadcasting may not influence TVNZ editorially, as the sole shareholder he or she can make life pretty uncomfortable by demanding a large dividend, as they have for the last few years. Also the government of the day appoints the TVNZ Board, which perhaps unsurprisingly now contains quite a few ‘friends of the National Party’. So TVNZ is already very much under the thumb of the prevailing political party.

But when the government choooses to tightly control and bully government departments, as this government is known to (as did the previous Clark government) they don’t need to overtly tell TVNZ what editorial line to follow. Any smart media organisation knows how to self-censor themselves to keep their bosses happy.

Perhaps this explains a lot of what happens at TVNZ.

The Television New Zealand Act should be adjusted so that our most powerful broadcaster is truly independent of the current government. The Board should not be appointed by government but by a separate independent body.

That also goes for the boards of New Zealand on Air and Radio NZ, lest they also fall into the trap of not-biting-the-hand-that-feeds-them (some say they already have fallen into that trap).

Meanwhile, a plaudit to the incoming Minister of Broadcasting, Amy Adams. When replying to Kris Faafoi’s questions about the demise of TVNZ’s Maori and Pacific Island Department, she said she will “continue to monitor whether there is any drop in the quality, the content, or the quantity of programming as a result (of the closure).”

She also announced that “the Government’s interest from a broadcasting perspective is that good quality, locally relevant content is available, particularly reflecting things like ethnic minorities and Māori perspectives.”

We seem to have a Broadcasting Minister who cares about public service values. Hopefully the role she takes with TVNZ is to preserve those values rather than to preserve the ‘no-surprises’ policy.

Myles Thomas – CEO of Coalition for Better Broadcasting

TDB Recommends NewzEngine.com

Things That Make You Go Hmmmmmmm

Curwen Ares Rolinson

October 31, 2014

Every so often in politics, a public figure comes out with something so absurd and so outlandish … that it really does just make you go “Hmmmmmmmmmm”.

We’re accustomed to this from certain quarters – by mid point through the last Campaign, for instance, virtually nobody in the country was going to bat an eyelid if Colin Craig declared he’s suddenly sighted Elvis; while making a habit of believing in six impossible things before breakfast is almost a requirement for membership of the ACT Party. (Although this usually restricts itself to mad economic sentiment like “Privatize EVERYTHING!” rather than curious philosophical defences of legalized incest) There’s also Richard Prosser.

But the one that really, seriously took the cake for me this past twenty four hours (other than certain MANA supporters) was Green MP Steffan Browning’s bizarre series of comments in relation to homeopathy as part of the possible response to Ebola. I appreciate that signing an online petition is hardly tantamount to a declaration of lunacy; but it’s his response to journalists outside the House this afternoon which really caught my eye.

When asked whether he thought that the World Health Organization should be looking into homeopathy as part of its response to Ebola, he asked “Why not?” before going on to assert that “while I am not an expert” – clearly – “I assume they will look at [homeopathy] as much as a number of other options.”

Or, in other words, he’s worked out signing the petition wasn’t a good look (probably after a fun conversation with his Leader) … but he somehow missed the bit where telling the country he’s perplexed as to why you *wouldn’t* consider homeopathy for inclusion in the response to Ebola … really doesn’t help ditch the spacey vibe.

The Greens’ leadership team will be rather annoyed by this for exactly the same reason I tend to get rather annoyed every time Winston makes a risque joke. Just as NZF grapples with a legacy of being perceived as holding extreme and unpopular views on immigration (thanks in no small part to incidents like former Deputy Leader and immigrant to our fine shores from the UK Peter Brown stating in his plummy English accent various things about other migrant groups), the Greens are struggling to ditch the appearance of being a party of, by and for weed-smoking organic-fabric-wearing vegan-cooking Age-of-Aquarius-singing alternative lifestylers called Galadriel.

This involves shifting public perceptions and the stereotype of what Green people believe in from things like the anti-vaccination movement, anti-fluoridation or a zero growth economic agenda to more mainstream palatable concepts like broad population and public health, and some sort of “smart” green sustainable capitalism. (although I note their health policy still maintains the line about supporting an independent study into fluoridation’s effects, support for an opt-out from fluoridation option, and absolutely no mention of the word “vaccine”.)

Having an MP publicly running around stating as much tacit and tantamount support for alternative medicine (which, as I believe Tim Minchin originally put it, would be simply called “medicine” if it worked as explained) as he’s now allowed to … does not help the Greens to do this. On the other hand, as proven by Peter Dunne over the years, there is potentially an electoral payoff to being able to connect with small but passionate groups like homeopathy-adherents or the anti-fluoridation lobby.

Still, Browning’s gaffe is mostly harmless. He’s not really in a substantive position to influence the actual fight against Ebola; and for this, the planet should possibly be grateful. However, there are obvious population and public health implications inherent in a Parliamentarian – or, for that matter, I suppose *any* sufficiently positioned public figure – choosing to endorse such an *ahem* placebo-dependent form of “medicine”; potentially, in the minds of constituents, at the expense or in alternative to more conventional remedies and responses.

Of potentially greater concern, however, is when people who actually *can* influence outcomes do this sort of thing.

My generation, of course, grew up with our teenage years backdropped by the phenomenon of the Bushism; and the idea that somewhere in Texas a village was missing its idiot … who’d then somehow made it into the White House … certainly made for an eloquent – if overly simplistic – explanation for the geopolitics of the day.

This pales, of course, in comparison to Bush Snr’s Vice President, Dan Quayle … but apart from mentioning he reputedly made H.W Bush “impeachment-proof” by, inter alia, insistently correcting a student spelling of the word “potato” to “potatoe” while judging a primary school spelling bee, postulating a breathable atmosphere for humans on Mars thanks to the “canals” he believed existed thereon, declaring the US to be part of Europe, and displaying a surprising degree of candor in describing American success in the First Gulf War as “a stirring victory for the forces of aggression” … we’ll just gloss over him by noting he was no Jack Kennedy.

To bring it back to the New Zealand context, and remind why it’s occasionally quite scary when our MPs and decision-makers start giving us tangible evident of how daft they can be … look no further than Energy Minister Simon Bridges describing environmental preserve regulations and protections as “emotional clap-trap”. Then opening up the protected space to mining.

Another (now former) MP who’s served as a Minister in Key’s government with a history of problematic statements in an area of policy they may be able to influence is Tariana Turia. Here she is in 2004 describing high Maori teen pregnancy rates as something that’s entirely non-problematic and preferable to “an excessive focus on controlling our fertility”, while also suggesting that a woman’s fertility is “not meant to be the responsibility of one person, alone”. She’s then subsequently tried to influence the exercise of the nation’s laws in an overtly pro-life direction by attempting to have a rigidly anti-abortion doctor appointed to the Abortion Supervisory Committee.

See how MPs with curious beliefs can produce sketch outcomes?

TDB Recommends NewzEngine.com

Poverty & inequality don’t need protest marches – they need a riot: #ifihadahammer

Martyn Bradbury

October 30, 2014

The global level of inequality continues to skyrocket…

Number of billionaires doubled since financial crisis
The number of billionaires has doubled since the start of the financial crisis, according to a major new report from anti-poverty campaigners.

According to Oxfam, the world’s rich are getting richer, leaving hundreds of millions of people facing a life “trapped in poverty” as global “inequality spirals out of control”.

The report found that the number of billionaires in the world has more than doubled to 1,646 since the financial crisis of 2009, and Oxfam says is evidence that the benefits of a return to economic growth are “not being shared with the vast majority”.

…and an interesting article asking if NZ’s poor will revolt…

Revolt of the poor unlikely in Godzone

Following our election American billionaire and prophet of doom Nick Hanauer could be on his way here, with a lot of his rich mates.

This country will be a bolt-hole for the super-rich, according to a lecture, The Pitchforks are coming for us Plutocrats, which Hanauer delivered to the influential TED Foundation earlier this year (the essay is available on politico.com).

Now widely re-published on the web, this article predicts blood in the streets unless wealth gets shared more fairly.

Hanauer says the divide between the haves and have-nots is getting worse fast, and unless measures such as raising the minimum wage are introduced, the middle class could disappear.

“The more money workers make, the more opportunities people like me have,” says the Seattle venture capitalist.

“A real economy is just like the game of Monopoly – when one person has all the money, the game is over.”

His warning to the top 1 per cent, who now share about 20 per cent of America’s wealth, is that they may not be able to spot the inevitable revolution coming.

“Revolutions, like bankruptcies, come gradually, then suddenly . . . And then there’s no time for us to get on our Gulfstream Vs and fly to New Zealand.”

It’s unclear why Hanauer chose New Zealand as an example of a reliable safe haven for the super-rich to flee to, but in any case he seems to have been bang on.

The New Zealand poor, some of whom rioted in 1932 and 1984, show few signs of activism – violent or otherwise – with union membership in the doldrums and near collapse of the political left at the last election.

Labour pointed out 40 per cent of the New Zealand children growing up in poverty are in working households. They promised to raise the minimum wage from $14.25 to $16.25 an hour by next year. But it was to no avail.

…the article makes the point that the political left is dead post the election and the level of disconnect between the haves and the have nots is so large that those have nots are simply too disillusioned with the political process to participate any longer. With no overarching ideological narrative to drive mass mobilisation, I don’t think a revolution is even remotely possible in NZ, but desperation driven by poverty could very well generate a riot.

Respected economist Brian Easton asks if NZ will be racked with civil disturbances by the angry poor…

A divided country?
The election demonstrated deep divisions. Will the next three years make them worse or help heal the rift? And where will the pressure points be?

Will we see New Zealanders marching in the streets during the next three years? I don’t mean protests in which the police, while behaving perfectly professionally, are smiling benignly in a sort of agreement. I’m wondering whether we’ll see civil disturbances. And I’m not the only person pondering such things – probably even John Key is. He has had a good parliamentary win, but the country seems intensely divided.

I don’t think there’ll be any addressing of inequality by the NZ political class until there is wide spread civil disobedience and news coverage beaming out angry people smashing up Queen street. Only then will the Government be forced to address the problem beyond their empty rhetoric and punitive policy.

Throughout our history, we have not moved on genuine policy to address poverty until there has been a sharp short shock to the current system, a riot is the exact sort of pressure valve that once blown can’t be ignored.

All a riot needs is desperation, an issue that resonates and a means to transmit the message.

Deepening poverty generates the desperation. Something like road tolls or more draconian welfare cuts could provide the issue and social media promoting a ‘riot against poverty’ event creates the means to transmit the message.

NZers will leave the sickles at home, but maybe they might pick up a hammer?

#ifihadahammer

TDB Recommends NewzEngine.com

If Key knows who Rawshark is…

Martyn Bradbury

October 30, 2014

I’m sorry, what?

John Key ‘given Rawshark’s name’
The Prime Minister believes he knows who hacked Whale Oil blogger Cameron Slater’s computer and produced the source material for Nicky Hager’s Dirty Politics, according to a new edition of a recently published biography of John Key.

Who told him? Cameron Slater? And when he was told, was he being told as the Prime Minister with GCSB oversight and the ability to pressure the intelligence services into finding out for him, or was he told as the leader the National Party?

If Key knows who Rawshark is – when will the Police raid his house for 10 hours?

TDB Recommends NewzEngine.com

Child Poverty stats in NZ

TheDailyBlog Reposts

October 30, 2014

Child Poverty stats in NZ

TDB Recommends NewzEngine.com

Crimes Act + Police Investigation = WTF

Rachael Goldsmith

October 30, 2014

Just to frame the farce that is the Roastbuster’s investigation and conclusion – here are the parts of the Crime Act http://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/1961/0043/latest/whole.html#DLM329057 the Roastbusters are proven to have violated – that the police (and some suspects!) themselves acknowledge occurred:

Crimes Act 1961

128A Allowing sexual activity does not amount to consent in some circumstances

4. A person does not consent to sexual activity if the activity occurs while he or she is so affected by alcohol or some other drug that he or she cannot consent or refuse to consent to the activity.

“Police investigating the Roast Busters scandal were shocked to learn of the amount of alcohol consumed by those involved and the group’s poor understanding of consent… the level of drunkenness described to police, including some of the group passing out, was “shocking to hear”. ”

Ummmm…..

134 Sexual conduct with young person under 16

(1) Every one who has sexual connection with a young person is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 10 years.

(2) Every one who attempts to have sexual connection with a young person is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 10 years.

(3) Every one who does an indecent act on a young person is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 7 years.

(4) No person can be convicted of a charge under this section if he or she was married to the young person concerned at the time of the sexual connection or indecent act concerned.

(5) The young person in respect of whom an offence against this section was committed cannot be charged as a party to the offence if the person who committed the offence was of or over the age of 16 years when the offence was committed.

(6) In this section,—

(a) young person means a person under the age of 16 years; and
(b) doing an indecent act on a young person includes indecently assaulting the young person.

Consent was therefore impossible. All suspects were over 16 years of age. Man admits sex with child under 16. Man guilty. But oh no, not in this case – a suspect can and did admit to having sex with 10 (and his mates with 20) girls – but because the girl doesn’t go through with a statement it’s not rape? And if the suspect states they thought they got consent, it therefore was consensual? WHAAAAA????!!!!!! Does that line up with the cold fact of illegal activity above? No way.

The continuous insane defence of being needing to be ‘delicate’ throughout the police report is infuriating. I never thought I’d be this mad at PC-ness and talk of victims rights, but in this case I think how it’s being used to wash over legislation is a crock legally.

Why is it a crock?

Because actual legal reality is, that the police do NOT require the victim’s blessing to continue with an investigation and charge offenders. Particularly in cases involving minors. And as a friend said today – what about murder? Can’t get a statement signed off by a corpse! So what on earth is this defence of not having enough cooperation?

It’s nothing more than an excuse.

Am I saying that the victims shouldn’t have rights? No, absolutely they should. Which is why the police could have (instead of tip-toeing around hoping this would all go away) put significant effort into protecting them THROUGH the process. The fear of identification and bullying is very real – but can be mitigated with the correct support, with empathy, with empowerment – creating trusting relationships with the girls. What about investing in victim support of the ‘you can do this and we’ll be with you, and we will publically pounce on anyone who breaches your privacy’ type instead of so much in ‘this is why you shouldn’t go any further, you really really shouldn’t’ type? None of the alienating, wishy-washy, fear-inducing communication victims say occurred – after they either had the indignity of being ignored and forgotten when they initially reported (in whatever way) sexual assault, or who were silent and scared to speak because they knew they didn’t matter.

There are even more facepalm moments in the Clover Report. At least two persons of interest provided admissible evidence. Means nothing, apparently. And suspects were not pulled in for questioning – they were “invited” and “declined”. This boggles my mind. Since when in serial rape cases were suspects “invited” and the police sigh ‘ah well never mind, too bad’ when they say ‘nah, don’t wanna’ and close the file? This is a joke, right? This is not a justice system I and all of you would like to have faith in.

Videos and photographs of older men having sexual activity with intoxicated underage girls + admittance of it by suspects both on bragging video and to police = proof, arrest and charges. It’s really that simple.

So is the elephant in the room – the police’s lack of initial investigation. Suppose it happened this way – the way it should have. What if they did investigate when girls first notified them – searched the suspects residences and found pictures and video on their phones? Lock ‘em up and throw away the key!!!

But no.

28 pages of blah blah blah boils down to utter FAILURE from the system. It’s blindingly obvious from reading the Crimes Act that there is proof of multiple offences here. And it’s also obvious that somehow we are now in a place where our justice system’s answer to rape is basically – well they thought it was ok, so it’s ok.

That’s not ok.

It should not be up to the perpetrator to decide what consent is. It should not be up to youth to decide what consent is. The LAW decides what consent is – and all this decision does is tell young people – who still haven’t finished their brain development and don’t have a mature outlook on the world – that it’s up to them to decide what rape is.

I so desperately want this to be the last time NZ puts up with this. I want this to be the final big swing of the pendulum towards injustice for victims created by a culture of fear of false accusations. It’s gone too far. As I showed above – this system makes a farce of the Crimes Act. It’s a joke, and unfortunately the joke today is on any NZer who has been sexually assaulted – the 99% of survivors who get no justice.

It’s past time to turn the tide on this insanity and get to a system that actually upholds justice.

TDB Recommends NewzEngine.com

Publishing Journalists’ Home Addresses Is A Tactic Of The Right, Not The Left

Curwen Ares Rolinson

October 30, 2014

I think I’m starting to get rather annoyed with the conduct of some pro-MANA people over this ongoing Parliamentary Services crew complement issue.

Yes, we get that there are legitimate issues to be raised with how some political reporters in this country operate. InternetMANA Press Secretary and Caller-Out of “Puffed Up Little Shits” Pam Corkery eloquently and factually spelled out some of these in her excellent piece a few weeks back.

*THAT’S* how you raise issue with these sorts of things. In an appropriate context, and buttressed with appropriate content. As their own issue, rather than as an attempted deflection from the gravity and seriousness of the episode presently engulfing MANA.

You *don’t* decide to give the errant press a taste of its own medicine by taking it upon yourself to publish the address of the reporter in question online.

What the hell kinda person does that.

Now I will note that there’s a certain sadistic glee to be had whenever a politico manages to “turn the tables” on the media and put *them* under the hard glare. This is, assumedly, why we enjoy watching Winston rip into and counter-interrogate a particularly obstinate journalist every now and again.

But has the MANA supporter behind the address posting thought about the likely results of this? If this actually turns out to be Tova O’Brien’s *actual* place of residence, then I imagine there’ll be more than just one fake camera crew turning up on her doorstep to demand an “interview”.

The way some Hone-fans are whipping themselves up into a frenzy, I’d half expect a whole baying mob!

Now if it *isn’t* Tova O’Brien’s actual address … then I imagine that some poor confused Wellington residents are about to be inundated with unwanted and unwarranted knocks at the door – and I don’t mean from Jehovah’s Witnesses.

Either way, this is profoundly uncool conduct from what I hope’s just a few excessively-irate MANA supporters.

I appreciate that emotions are running high right now in some camps, but casually putting up what you’re claiming is somebody’s home address and telling people to make sure “she’ll get the message” … isn’t an example of “[playing] her at her own game” … it’s an example of you sinking to the level of Cameron Slater or Cactus Kate.

Now let’s all take a deep breath … quit trying to make this about ethics in political-game journalism … and hurry up and wait for Hone to front on this issue.

Oh, and I’m assuming that, for various reasons, the alleged O’Brien household won’t be handing out candy to strangers who come a’knocking at their door this Halloween. Particularly if they come dressed as camera crews or political reporters.

TDB Recommends NewzEngine.com

Aucklanders caught between a tarseal-addicted government and a weak mayor

John Minto

October 30, 2014

Len Brown’s proposal for motorway tolls to reduce congestion and provide funding for better public transport is a weak response to a critical issue.

The $12 billion dollar shortfall on transport funding he talks about is mainly for projected new road projects with less than a third of that amount for improving public transport. And yet city planners freely admit that even if Auckland builds all these new roads the government wants congestion will continue to get worse.

In fact no city anywhere in the world has tarsealed its way out of congestion – it simply doesn’t work.

The bigger a city gets the more cars that use the roads and building new roads just mean you get to the traffic jam quicker.

The answer to Auckland’s traffic problems is to increase public subsidies for roads and trains from 50% to 100%. In other words make public transport free of charge. This would cost less than half the projected spending on new roads which would not be needed as commuters get out of their cars in droves to use modern, free and frequent buses, trains and ferries.

It provides a win-win outcome for Aucklanders with benefits to the environment and giving all of us up to an hour a day extra at home instead of crawling along a motorway.

Even the most right-wing reprobate who would never sully a seat on a bus or train would benefit by being able to drive on congestion-free motorways.

The worst thing about Brown’s proposal is that those paying the most for tolls will be families living the farthest from their jobs. This is typically low-income families from South and West Auckland who are car-dependant because public transport option are so poor. One mum I met last year worked four hours a day cleaning the central library after driving in from Mangere (cheaper than taking the bus). She and other low-income workers would pay the lion’s share of the tolls needed to fund Len Brown’s transport deficit.

In private Len Brown is happy to talk about free public transport and sees its immediate benefits but he’s not a strong leader and his lack of courage means he prefers to front a right-wing, user-pays solution than a bold public transport policy.

So is the government (which is on Aucklanders’ side against the proposal) really concerned for the impact tolls will have on low-income families as Transport Minister Simon Bridges says?

Not a chance. Bridges and former Transport Minister Gerry Brownlee both speak against tolling existing motorways because they are worried at the reaction from Aucklanders. If public opinion moves further against tolls they don’t want to be caught on the wrong side of the argument.

So what’s John Key’s solution? Reduce the amount of the transport deficit by scrapping or delaying public transport initiatives and keep pouring money into new roads. Yes it’s brainless and self-defeating but it will keep business happy in the short term.

Bridges put it this way yesterday –

“…the National-led Government is spending more than ever before to help build the city’s transport network; around a billion dollars a year. These include very large projects like the Waterview Connection, the widening of the North Western Motorway, the electrification of commuter rail, and the acceleration of motorway projects on the Northern and Southern Corridors.”

National’s priority for roads, roads and roads when the answer is to abandon new roading projects and use the money to decongest Auckland overnight.

TDB Recommends NewzEngine.com

A Very Weird Story: Deconstructing Darren Aronofsky’s Noah.

Chris Trotter

October 30, 2014

NOAH is a curious movie. Conceived as a biblical epic, it’s target audience was originally the millions of Americans who regard the Bible as God’s inerrant word. With the sin-filled works of Hollywood forbidden to these true-believers, Christian movie-makers have developed a lucrative niche market for church-backed big-screen offerings that faithfully reproduce the scriptural plot-lines.

But if fidelity to the Genesis story was central to Director, Darren Aronofsky’s, original pitch for Noah, the final cut presents the viewer with something altogether different. Essentially, Aronofsky and his co-writer, Ari Handel, have taken the biblical tale and re-worked it into a homily on humanity’s will to dominate and the damage it inflicts upon both the social and the natural world. Not surprisingly, when Paramount Pictures attempted to secure the support of the Christian distribution networks for Aronofsky’s final offering, the response was less than enthusiastic.

The ease with which Noah’s screenwriters’ were diverted from their original intentions is understandable because, read closely, the Book of Genesis is a very weird story. What, for example, are we supposed to make of this?

“And it came to pass, when men began to multiply on the face of the earth, and daughters were born unto them, that the sons of God saw the daughters of men that they were fair; and they took them wives of all which they chose.”

Or this?

“There were giants in the earth in those days; and also after that, when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare children to them, the same became mighty men which were of old, men of renown.”

These verses are just there in the sixth chapter of Genesis – apropos of God knows what! One thing, however, is clear: that in the years following Adam’s and Eve’s expulsion from the Garden of Eden some very peculiar things were going on. Odd enough for Aronofsky and Handel to incorporate these fallen sons of God, these angels, into their movie’s plot-line. They called then “The Watchers”

Exactly what America’s stern guardians of evangelical Christian orthodoxy made of this plot device when asked to view the final cut of Noah one can only guess. In all probability they did not want the younger members of their congregations speculating about why angels might want to “come in unto the daughters of men”. Aronofsky’s and Handel’s use of the expression “The Watchers” posed even bigger problems.

Any good dictionary of religion (not to mention Google!) will lead any person curious to learn more about the Watchers to another very strange collection of stories about what happened in the years between the expulsion from Eden and the Great Flood. The Book of Enoch is, if possible, even weirder than Genesis. So weird that for more than 2,000 years both the Judaic and the Christian religious authorities have thought it best to keep The Book of Enoch out of both the Torah and the Bible.

According to Enoch, the Watchers didn’t just content themselves with seducing the daughters of men, they had a much bigger agenda:

“It happened that when in those days the sons of men increased, pretty and attractive daughters were born to them. The Watchers, sons of the sky, saw them and lusted for them and said to each other: Let’s go and pick out women from among the daughters of men and sire for ourselves sons”.

To these, the offspring of the “sons of the sky”, the Watchers passed on all manner of useful knowledge. Enoch helpfully vouchsafes to us the names of some of these Watchers and what they taught:

“And Azâzêl taught men to make swords, and knives, and shields, and breastplates, and made known to them the metals of the earth and the art of working them, and bracelets, and ornaments, and the use of antimony, and the beautifying of the eyelids, and all kinds of costly stones, and all colouring tinctures. And there arose much godlessness, and they committed fornication, and they were led astray, and became corrupt in all their ways. Semjâzâ taught enchantments, and root-cuttings, Armârôs the resolving of enchantments, Barâqîjâl, taught astrology, Kôkabêl the constellations, Ezêqêêl the knowledge of the clouds, Araqiêl the signs of the earth, Shamsiêl the signs of the sun, and Sariêl the course of the moon.”

If you’re beginning to think that all this is beginning to sound like the script of one of those Ancient Aliens“documentaries” that infest the History Channel, then you’d be entirely justified. That Aronofsky and Handel declined to take their screenplay in that direction was, perhaps, a mistake. It would have made a lot more sense to re-tell the story of Noah as a terrifying example of what happens when ordinary human-beings get caught up in the quarrels of horny “Sons of the Sky” bearing portentous “gifts”.

As it is, the screenplay of Noah is neither fish nor fowl. It’s certainly not a biblical epic in the tradition ofThe Ten Commandments or The Greatest Story Ever Told, but neither is it a work of science fiction likeStargate. Instead, Noah is that rarest of things in this irreligious age, a heretical work.

Sensing that the biblical version of the Great Flood is but a fragment of a much older and more finely textured myth, Aronofsky and Handel have attempted to construct from its ill-fitting remnants a story about human power, human guilt, and human redemption. That they failed, producing a film so filled with gross failures of logic, motivation, and theology that not even the participation of Russell Crowe, Emma Watson and Sir Anthony Hopkins could save it, is not to be wondered at. Myths are the work of many literary hands, constructed over centuries. It’s takes a scholar of J.R.R. Tolkien’s stature to make a believable myth from the contents of a single mind.

What can be said, however, is that Aronofsky’s and Handel’s Noah possesses the power to set those whose temperament leans towards the mystical on a fascinating path of inquiry. It also reminds us that the world depicted in the Bible is a very strange one. A world choc-full of supernatural beings – and only some of them are benign (or even decent!)

No wonder the Christian Right refused to endorse it.

TDB Recommends NewzEngine.com

1...2,2162,2172,218...2,853 Page 2,217 of 2,853

The Daily Blog

Myth Busting Rape Boasters

Workers rights weakened by new laws – fightback needed

GUEST BLOG: Simon Buckingham – Where are Labour Candidates on disability?

GUEST BLOG: Blockade the Budget

When National claim new anti worker laws provide ‘flexibility’ they mean spine snapping

City Transport: A Taxing Matter

MEDIA WATCH: Does ‘No-Surprises’ Also Apply To TVNZ News?

Things That Make You Go Hmmmmmmm

If Key knows who Rawshark is…

Child Poverty stats in NZ

Crimes Act + Police Investigation = WTF

Publishing Journalists’ Home Addresses Is A Tactic Of The Right, Not The Left

Aucklanders caught between a tarseal-addicted government and a weak mayor

A Very Weird Story: Deconstructing Darren Aronofsky’s Noah.

STAY CONNECTED

Foreign policy + Intel + Security

Subscribe | Follow | Bookmark
and join Buchanan & Manning LIVE Thursdays @ midday

MIL Public Webcast Service

STAY CONNECTED

Foreign policy + Intel + Security Subscribe | Follow | Bookmarkand join Buchanan & Manning LIVE Thursdays @ midday MIL Public Webcast Service

Foreign policy + Intel + Security

Subscribe | Follow | Bookmark
and join Buchanan & Manning LIVE Thursdays @ midday

MIL Public Webcast Service