Bomber's written a blog piece in which he basically says he reckons my Party's mad-keen for rape apologism. So I wrote an Open Letter back.
It appears you're labouring under some misapprehensions about the nature of NZ First and her supporters.
First up, you've said in no uncertain terms, that you believe Tamihere ought to become the "new Deputy" of NZF. This will, assumedly, come as quite a surprising and unwelcome suggestion to NZF, who've just two weeks ago elected our own, rather less misogynist, Deputy Leader. Who also happens to be our party's Women's Affairs Spokesperson.
Incidentally, the self-same "second-rate political circus freak" (as you call her), has been driving progressive elements of NZF policy-formation such as our recent motion at Convention to institute legislative protections for girls in situations of proposed marriage under the age of 18.
Do you really think that if we're going to take a hard line on consent issues as applies marriage, that we're somehow not going to be taking exactly the same stringent line on sexual consent? Specifically the way in which girls under the age of 16 *are actually and assumedly unable* to render legal, informed consent?
You talk about "jaw-dropping sexism" emanating from our Party. Have you got some persuasive, compelling and pervasive evidence for this...? I admit that it took us some two decades to produce a female Party President, Deputy Leader, and better gender-balance within our Caucus than the modern Labour Party all happening simultaneously ... but none of that's really relevant to the charges you raise, which basically appear to come down to "active enthusiasm and support for rape-apologism".
Suffice to say, NZ First understands the difference between "promiscuity" and "alcohol-induced statutory rape of a minor". We also understand the difference between "freedom of speech" and "saying objectionable, offensive things as a media mouthpiece" (whether on talkback radio or a prominent blog)
And let me put it to you this way. All of them "old heads" in our "dusty constituency" that you defame by alleging they're actively enthusiastic about supporting rape apologism ... I'm not going to ask you how you'd feel if we said that about YOUR grandmother; but I am going to ask you to take a moment to stop, think, and consider just how many of those little old ladies who are stalwarts for NZF might have granddaughters who're about 13 right now. Or who were 13 once, or who had daughters who were 13.
Done that? Thought about our constituency as people with families, daughters, sisters, mothers and grandmothers?
Realized that perhaps, just perhaps, these people have something other than vague and non-specified concern about "youth promiscuity" going through their heads and instead a desire to help build a safer NZ to pass on to those very same grandkids by dealing with lowlife sexual abuser scum?
And that some of our little older ladies may in fact have been in the exact same position as some of these victims themselves in their younger days, having to negotiate what sounds like exactly the same police culture two, three, four or six decades ago?
Tell you what, Bomber.
"Nothing gets old heads nodding in agreement faster than the shameful ..." insolence of upstart youthful journalists who insist on telling them what they think they should be doing. Particularly when that "what they think they should be doing" is "supporting rape apologism".
How to drive voting & policy debate this election... and how not to - The news cycle sure is quick these days – and getting quicker. We've long known that today's news is tomorrow's fish n' chips wrapping, but these days ar...
12 hours ago