President sues over 'rape' cartoon

Don't get me wrong. I like political cartoons - they save me the trouble of having to plough through scrolls of bureaucratic nonsense to get to the absolute point of a story. But this cartoon, "depicting him (Zuma) with his pants undone, preparing to rape a blindfolded, female figure symbolising justice," just won't sit well with me.

First of all, there was an actual rape accusation and a court case, oh and the typical acquittal so I ask myself, first and foremost, what's so bloody funny or satirical about characterising such a violent crime? If Zuma thought it was humiliating, I cannot imagine what the victims felt. 

The cartoon's flipside is the the depiction of Zuma practically shafting the judicial system, not the woman/women themselves so I kind of guess, that lets the cartoonist off a little - or does it? As a woman I find any image and I mean any image of rape appalling. To me, it's like trying to read what's behind the image itself - the injustice perhaps of someone like Zuma using his political influence to escape rape charges - but I can't cause the image of rape is too loud and overbearing. So it fails to make it's point in my eyes.

I get tired of female symbolism being used negatively. Boats or ships are predominately depicted as female yet women aren't allowed on them if, god forbid, they are having one of their female moments. The statue of Liberty is female. She's entrusted with the ideals of justice yet brutally raped just to make a point. You can't have it both ways - the worldwide expectation that such a symbol representing justice, an ideology if you will, be respected and then, when it suits, stand back and accept the complete opposite. This goes beyond just bad taste. It's an insult to women.

President sues over 'humiliating' cartoon - World - NZ Herald News:

Abusing sexual abuse...?

You all know me by now. Someone accused of sexual abuse and there I am, banner in hand, calling for someone's willy to be chopped.  However, my skepticism of US policy far exceeds that fear. 

How convenient is it to suddenly have these "sexual assault" charges made against a man whose exposed International bullshit that we never knew about? 

I mean, these people in power (that you and I pay for) are apparently doing shit behind our backs. Don't we have a right to know, to hold them accountable? Don't we want to know why "Joe Bloggs" is so fucked off he feels determined to blow something or someone up? How do we know it's not because of one of the many "leaked" documents exposing a "certain" Government? Okay, it's a little far fetched for good old anti-nuke New Zealand, but (last I heard, this is our planet too right?) and if some Government, somewhere, is screwing with people who have the passion and determination to make my life and that of my child a frigging misery, don't I have the  right to know why?

What is so wrong with transparency? 

I live by one simple rule: If you can't do it in front of me, you shouldn't be doing it at all. 

John Pilger, a much respected Australia journalist said: "They (the powers that be) have read our emails for such a long time. Isn't it time, we read theirs?" And he makes a bloody valid point. 

WikiLeaks founder still committed | Stuff.co.nz

Surgery for cop attacked with machete

Senior Constable Bruce Mellor underwent surgery last night for multiple skull fractures and horrendous defensive wounds  following a machete attack by two youths he stopped to question about their erratic driving.

"He spoke to the two occupants, one just 14 years old and the other aged 18, and headed back to his patrol car to do checks. He was then hit on the back and side of the head by one of the boys using the blunt side of a machete."

The car was later identified as stolen.

What on earth is going on with our youth? I don't like to throw the youth all into one group but these slim-balls are yet to be identified and I also don't like to attribute such violence to, perhaps, the latest movie release but it does make you wonder. 

What on earth is going on here? What makes two boys even think about attacking a person let alone an officer? Look I know if I was in a stolen car and got pulled over, a few random escape plans would enter my head too but...machete? At best I'd probably give a false name and try my damnedest to lie my way out of trouble but give up the goose once I realised cops just ain't that dumb. Gee, better still, I'd not steal a car in the first place?

At the risk of sounding like some crusty old fart, things were way different when I was their age. I knew what was right and I knew what was wrong. Moreover, I knew that if I decided to do something wrong, there was a bloody good chance I'd be punished. There was never any space in my brain to even contemplate any other alternative like - if caught, we'll fight like shit to get out of it, kill if we have to.

Interestingly, I have just brought this story up with my 12 year old daughter. Her first question was "Oh, were they boys?" I nodded. "Ah, well it will be that testosterone then Mum," and before I could jump on my bandwagon, she added, "yeah but testosterone has been around for years so that's not it."

She then went on to tell me about a discussion her class had about bullying at school. "Most us girls said we'd tell them to piss of... oh, don't worry Mum, that's not like swearing or anything... but the boys, all of them, they all said they'd beat them up."

Why do they do that I asked. 

She took a deep breath and shook her head. "It's just the way they've been raised."

• New Zealand Police Minister Judith Collin says she will be raising the issue of officers patrolling alone with Police Commissioner Howard Broad. She says it is not the first time a lone officer has been attacked in a rural environment. 
• Between 2004-05 year and 2008-09, total assaults on Police increased by 33 per cent, from 1,869 to 2,481, while serious assaults increased by 38 percent, from 298 to 412. (http://www.beehive.govt.nz/release/bill-assaults-police-corrections-officers-introduced-parliament ) 
• A cornerstone of the Government's law and order policy was to ensure there were 300 more officers on the frontline in Counties-Manukau by December 2010 than there was in December 2008, and an additional 300 around the rest of the country by December 2011. http://www.beehive.govt.nz/release/384-extra-police-nz-streets
• Due to low Police attrition during the recession, 11 of the 12 Police districts exceeded their staff levels in June 2009. The numbers are returning to the funded level and there will be 600 extra Police by December 2011.
• Surgery for cop attacked with machete | Stuff.co.nz: 

MPs urged to probe ACC

ACC's Dispute Resolution Services are under the spot light - again. This time, it's for claims rejected on the basis injuries were either pre-existing or degenerative. In other words, anyone over 40 years of age (who, incidentally, contribute the most in ACC payments) have a fat chance of getting a claim accepted. 

Meanwhile, former Associate ACC Minister Pansy Wong told Mr Schmidt in an October reply to his letter that the Government recognised that ACC's disputes process needed attention.

"Once decisions are made in relation to the Government's stocktake of ACC accounts, I will be leading a review of the dispute process," she said.

That is all well and good but last I heard, Pansy Wong resigned so now what? 

I am interested in this because ACC's Sensitive Claims Unit also underwent a major "review" of their current system and recommendations were put forward. We didn't expect major changes overnight but it would seem those same recommendations are just sitting in "Lala Land." Last I heard, ACC was going to get a "group" of people to implement those recommendations - one of which was to set up a more "palatable" if not humane screening process and to included a newly revised dispute resolution service. 

The above controversy is for those claiming compensation for torn ligaments and the like but it does nothing for my confidence - to think those seeking compensation/counselling for sexual abuse will experience the same numbing effect.

In the case of Dispute Resolution Services, if ACC are paying their wages, how impartial can they truly be?

Yes, but maybe that is the purpose - to get a group of people, paid by ACC, to reject cases while claiming to be "impartial." The SCU are yet to establish a revised resolution. Maybe they're waiting for these same staff members to cross the floor into SCU to implement the same farcical in-house policy. It just wouldn't surprise me.

http://msn.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10693279

Shush? No one is listening anyhow!

On December 1st - 1 week ago - I posted my controversial posting "time to get your head out of your ass" on both the SOSA Facebook page and Members only Facebook page. The post called into question the authenticity of the group and its members. 


Here is My soon to be deleted post?. 


The irony lays in their posted statement - their mission statement if you will:

"We want to put an end to the silence...."

My assumption/purpose of setting up a Facebook page is to spread your escapement of potential "sexual abuse survivors" and I do think Facebook is a great place for people to log into a site for support and the potential to get them more positively involved with their own healing. Well I don't know about you, but that's the reason why I joined. The fact that no one, and I mean no one, has even deleted my post (which has been published now for nearly a week) says a lot. 


It says a lot about the group itself. You want help? Well you've come to the wrong place. Someone to talk to, support you? Wrong again my friend. No, there is no one there to even monitor if someone was to need immediate help or support. There's no one there to even delete posts that might make you think the group is crap. Anyone can join. Anyone. And they post what they jolly well like and if you don't like what they post - gee, let me think - like a defensive child molester for one - no one is going to care cause no one monitors their site to ensure your safety.


Is this really what you pay your annual membership fees for?

What "defines" you?

Okay, I am a "survivor" of child sex abuse. I've had over a decade (all up) in counselling. Some good, some bad - goes with the territory I suppose - one of those insane prices you tend to have to pay. But I don't consider myself mad. I truly think I used to be and I apologise in advance to those who had to endure that, but lately,just lately, I'm starting to feel that noose around my neck again - the one that says "Oh, you're a sexual abuse survivor, so that's why you did so and so..."

I am starting to wonder .... when do "we" stop paying the price? When do we stop labelling ourselves? Sure, we call ourselves "survivors" but is that cause it's just more PC? If we have truly shifted from victim to survivor then why, pray do tell, are we constantly defined, pushed back into that "victim" status and reprimanded if we don't "behave" like victims? 

I ask this because actions I have done over the last few days have been referred to the actions of a sexually abused person. Those actions are therefore undermined, frowned upon, even pitied and I don't want that. Why can't my current actions stand on their own two feet, with merit, like normal person? Why must it be "Oh, she's just doing this or that because she was sexually abused?" Why can't I just be an irrational pissed off cow bag or worse, for those concerned, that I may actually have some merit, some credibility, a point?

I mean, if a drug user, whose been clean for over a decade for example, started "ranting" about the Government, would we all say, "Oh he's only saying all that cause he used to be an addict?" Could not that same person be just airing their opinions about something that pisses him off?

Why must the past define us all the time and by default, any action we do or say or feel or want, desire, or hope, be seen as motivated by that particular event? It intrigues me. 

Case in point:

Here is a posting about me on the SOSA website. 

"...It came as a surprise when the same person started making comments about events that occurred at the hui in a public forum. We held back from responding on this blog so as not fuel the fire, understanding that many (if not all) survivors, when hurting and struggling with the legacies of the abuse, direct their rage against themselves or the people who are trying to help rather than confronting the abuser. Holding back, however becomes hard when the other party lacks the courage to sort out disagreements in person and instead starts a hate campaign on a public blog."

Firstly, I did not write about the SOSA hui and the outrageous events that took place because I was sexually abused. I write about it cause I considered certain members' actions as immoral. But this published website comment doesn't feel like that. I look at it and think the "sexual abuse" flag is being used once again as an excuse, like everything I have to say is negated because of my tragic past. It's the same "brick wall" that is used to hide the actual crime, the same wall that some thrash their heads upon when going through the judicial system, the same negating bullshit when survivors have to struggle against the likes of ACC or unbelieving family members. 

That's what makes Gudrun's post on SOSA website even worse - the fact that it comes from SOSA is bad enough. The fact that it comes from a psychotherapist claiming to want to help women is unforgivable. How can you help when you use the very ammunition, used in their childhood, against them as grown adults? 

Gee, makes you wonder doesn't it? Am I saying that as a woman in her own right or "just" a sexually abused victim? Food for thought. 

Time to get your head out of your ass!

Here is an email from SOSA - a Charitable Trust aimed at helping "survivors of Sexual Abuse" and to which, right up until last night, I was the Media Officer.

Yes, it's been a long time coming but I have finally resigned. The last straw was their attempt to place a GAG ORDER on what I write on this here blog - of mine.....

It has been brought to my attention that you have posted a blog outlining details of a SOSA meeting in a public forum. (Um no, I mentioned an anon group and a "subject" that I thought would be interesting to discuss on my blog) 

This has caused significant distress to some members of SOSA, and is in breach of the confidentiality agreement which I believe was put in place at the start of the meeting. (A confidentiality agreement - yikes, this sounds real official - where is my copy of that by the way?)

Although you state in your post that you believe in the aims of SOSA, there are several comments made that reveal the content of the Raetihi meeting in ways that appear very critical about certain members who were present at the meeting. (Well if quacks like a duck, walks like a duck then my guess is, it's a fucking duck!)


I feel very uncomfortable about the SOSA meeting and the personal traits and responses of individual members of the group being discussed in a public forum. (It's been months since that meeting and several emails I've sent outlining my concerns have never even been responded to - until now, that is. Interesting.)

My need as SOSA president is to have a board that works well together and maintains both personal and professional boundaries, (Your fucking kidding me right? Boundaries was EXACTLY what my email was about - a counsellor bringing her clients to a meeting? What the fuck is that about? Oh that's right, we don't talk about that do we?) and treats fellow members with respect and dignity at all times.  

I hope that as a board we can collectively resolve any differences that have occurred or may occur in the future, within the confines of SOSA, rather than broadcasting our personal opinions within a public forum.  (Guess what? I heard once that men hoped they could lick their balls like dogs do but reality just doesn't work out like we wish sometimes.) 

I appreciate that you were careful to not directly name anyone present at the meeting.  However, several members have obviously been easily able to identify themselves or others who were present at the meeting.(Are these the same so-called Board Members who are also clients of the questionable counsellor who brought them along to  board meeting? And pray, do tell, which one of their "counsellor defined" voices were objecting at this point?)

While I agree that the controversy surrounding the topic you raised is worthy of clarifying, and that it would be useful to demystify this diagnosis for those who do not understand, (thank you so much for FINALLY seeing the purpose of my posting) the confidentiality of SOSA and its members needs to be maintained at all times.(You might like to tell that to the new members who have joined YOUR site, who have unknowingly put their personal details for public viewing. I did email you about this as well - nothing doing?) 


Therefore, I request on behalf of SOSA that you remove your blog post dated 25/10/10 (Fuck you!) as the content breaches the SOSA rules of confidentiality, and has created an unsafe environment (Oh fuck off!) for some of our members.

If you would like to discuss this further, I am happy to do so after the blog and related comments have been removed.

Kind regards

Tania BXXXXXX

President

SOSA NZ

MY RESPONSE:

Um.............no thanks, I have nothing to say other than I RESIGN AS THE MEDIA OFFICER on the following basis:

1. Your only "help" link on your website is an avenue into a Board Member's private counselling practice. 
2. Your treasurer officer, in charge of all the donations, with no previous experience, just so happens to be a woman with a $10k cheque from a deceased victim - How fucking immoral is that!!!
3. More than 60% Board members consist of yet another board member's patients, some of which are still very ill and vulnerable and don't need an organisation they went to FOR support ripping then off! 
4. Survivors don't need some half-ass goodie-two-shoe outfit promising shit they can't deliver. They've had that most their lives.
5. They're actually looking for something different and my view is, they are NOT going to get from you lot, not now.

SHAME ON YOU SOSA!