Hard News by Russell Brown

Read Post

Hard News: About Chris Brown

180 Responses

First ←Older Page 1 2 3 4 5 8 Newer→ Last

  • Craig Ranapia,

    And yet, Kanoa Lloyd makes some strong arguments in her Newsworthy column Chris Brown and Our Domestic Violence Double Standards. Most notably, that such immigration sanctions have been almost exclusively visited on black entertainers: “If you’re white, you’re still welcome. We’re much more certain you’ve learned the error of your ways.”

    And she’s not wrong, but shouldn’t our response to that be “well, perhaps we need to address the institutional racism, conscious or not, here” NOT “well, we should let this abusive dude in because fair’s fair…” Which, to be fair, is not what Lloyd is arguing at all but I’ve seen others trying to put that spin on it. Which is disturbing, but not on her.

    North Shore, Auckland • Since Nov 2006 • 12370 posts Report Reply

  • Ben D, in reply to Craig Ranapia,

    Also known as The Vetich Juxtaposition...

    Auckland • Since Aug 2014 • 4 posts Report Reply

  • HORansome,

    And whatever we feel about people, it is not just to punish them in perpetuity – hearing Tony Veitch on the radio might well make your skin crawl, but he does have a right to employment.

    Whilst this is true (insofar as people have right to some kind of employment), the Veitch case is one where, as I have always maintained, his lack of remorse (and trying to paint himself as the real victim) raises the question "Are there really no other sports broadcasters who are just as good (or even almost as good) who could have done that job?"

    This wasn't a case of giving Tony Veitch a job in shop or a factory making furniture; this was a case of giving Veitch another prominent media position, one in the public eye. Really, the only case for Veitch ever getting another media role, would have been if he was a) the only sports broadcaster in the country and b) we were legally mandated to have at least one sports broadcaster. As neither of those are the case, his remarkable return to the media really was a slight to the victims of domestic violence.

    So, yes; he may well have the right to employment, but nothing about that right says it was justified to give him that particular job.

    Tāmaki Makaurau • Since Sep 2008 • 441 posts Report Reply

  • Russell Brown, in reply to HORansome,

    This wasn't a case of giving Tony Veitch a job in shop or a factory making furniture; this was a case of giving Veitch another prominent media position, one in the public eye. Really, the only case for Veitch ever getting another media role, would have been if he was a) the only sports broadcaster in the country and b) we were legally mandated to have at least one sports broadcaster. As neither of those are the case, his remarkable return to the media really was a slight to the victims of domestic violence.

    In which case, our quarrel is with Veitch's employers.

    Auckland • Since Nov 2006 • 22756 posts Report Reply

  • HORansome, in reply to Russell Brown,

    In which case, our quarrel is with Veitch's employers.

    True. Although I think just a little opprobrium can also be expressed towards those who listen to him who happen to also be cognizant of the facts. I wouldn't be surprised if there was a little overlap between those who oppose Brown's entry to the country and yet happily listen to Veitch; a lot of the concern about the Chris Brown case is, I think, predicated entirely on how we are inconsistent when it comes to condemning such abuse. It seems some are going "But people like Veitch!" and then thinking "We should apply the same standard to Brown also!". Really, though, we should be applying the same standard to Veitch as we would to Brown.[1]

    Frankly, although this sounds like avant garde capital punishment, I think we should send all such abusers into deep space via a cannon or rail gun.

    1. In cases where the perpetrator shows no remorse (or whose actions indicate their stated remorse is, in fact, insincere). I don't want to come across as someone who doesn't think people can change.

    Tāmaki Makaurau • Since Sep 2008 • 441 posts Report Reply

  • Russell Brown, in reply to HORansome,

    I wouldn't be surprised if there was a little overlap between those who oppose Brown's entry to the country and yet happily listen to Veitch;

    I suspect you're correct.

    Auckland • Since Nov 2006 • 22756 posts Report Reply

  • Rosemary McDonald,

    Needs a tune...

    Waikato, or on the road • Since Apr 2014 • 1344 posts Report Reply

  • Peter Darlington,

    It seems a very organised campaign paving the way for him as well. I presume it has been put in place over some time even though it's only surfaced in the media in the last few days?

    Nelson • Since Nov 2006 • 948 posts Report Reply

  • B Jones,

    Does anyone have a right to employment? We have rights when we have an employment contract, and we have rights not to be discriminated against on certain grounds, but those grounds don't include assault convictions.

    Veitch's employers have a right to employ him if they want, but he doesn't have a right to be employed.

    Wellington • Since Nov 2006 • 976 posts Report Reply

  • Russell Brown, in reply to B Jones,

    Veitch's employers have a right to employ him if they want, but he doesn't have a right to be employed.

    Let's put it this way, then: he has a right to seek employment.

    Auckland • Since Nov 2006 • 22756 posts Report Reply

  • B Jones,

    That's a much better way to put it, and it sounds a lot less fatalistic about his role in sports broadcasting. It might even suggest there are people involved who've made a decision about it, who could theoretically have chosen to do something different. Talking about it as a right to be employed erases that responsibility.

    Wellington • Since Nov 2006 • 976 posts Report Reply

  • Steve Barnes, in reply to Russell Brown,

    Let's put it this way, then: he has a right to seek employment.

    Let us hope that one Mr Hosking will be seeking employment soon.
    BSA complaints upheld over Mike Hosking's ponytail comments

    The authority concluded the publication of the decision was sufficient to mark the breach and no order was made.

    The man needs the pillory.

    Peria • Since Dec 2006 • 5521 posts Report Reply

  • Rosemary McDonald, in reply to Steve Barnes,

    he man needs the pillory.

    However, the main purpose in putting criminals in the pillory was to publicly humiliate them. On discovering that the pillory was occupied, people would excitedly gather in the marketplace to taunt, tease and laugh at the offender on display.

    Surely Hoskings subjects himself to public humiliation on a daily basis?

    A sucker for punishment?

    However...a win!

    Waikato, or on the road • Since Apr 2014 • 1344 posts Report Reply

  • EliotBlennerhassett,

    So, has anyone asked his *victims* what they think should happen? I haven't seen/heard anything.

    Christhcurch • Since Jan 2010 • 15 posts Report Reply

  • Sue,

    donate half the money from the show to women's refuge and i'll believe he is touring nz to raise awareness around domestic violence and not profit - most bands tour for profit but if he has another reason show it.

    I think neither Veitch or Osbourne were not charged in court, we not convicted, there is a difference between a person with a record and one who does not. so i think they are irrelevant to the discussion

    But i would like to know how does one felon gain entrance to the country and others don't ? Is it based on the period of time since conviction?

    I think white musicians usually get kicked out of the country on arrival because they are dumb enough to have half a used joint in their suitcase.

    Wellington • Since Nov 2006 • 527 posts Report Reply

  • B Jones,

    And whatever we feel about people, it is not just to punish them in perpetuity

    I'm going to have to argue about that one as well. Sometimes it is just, especially when we're talking about soft punishments like shunning rather than imprisonment. How would we feel about Rolf Harris touring here in ten years' time, assuming he's still alive? Who'd like that clever economist Clayton Weatherston working for them once he's done his time? There are plenty of examples where forgive and forget once they've done their time isn't likely to happen, where a person damages their own reputation beyond repair through their actions. Is it that non-lethal domestic violence doesn't meet that standard? Should it?

    Wellington • Since Nov 2006 • 976 posts Report Reply

  • Sue, in reply to EliotBlennerhassett,

    So, has anyone asked his *victims* what they think should happen? I haven't seen/heard anything.

    Because victims deserve the right to be left alone forever

    Wellington • Since Nov 2006 • 527 posts Report Reply

  • B Jones, in reply to Sue,

    I think neither Veitch or Osbourne were not charged in court, we not convicted, there is a difference between a person with a record and one who does not.

    Veitch was charged, pleaded guilty, convicted and sentenced to nine months' supervision.

    Wellington • Since Nov 2006 • 976 posts Report Reply

  • Bart Janssen, in reply to Sue,

    half the money

    Half the ticket price please, because it's all too easy to fudge the numbers so the show make no profit.

    Of course that would almost certainly cause the shows to make a huge loss - which might indicate some genuine remorse.

    Auckland • Since Nov 2006 • 4451 posts Report Reply

  • Russell Brown, in reply to Sue,

    I think neither Veitch or Osbourne were not charged in court, we not convicted, there is a difference between a person with a record and one who does not. so i think they are irrelevant to the discussion

    Veitch pled guilty to the most serious charge, of injuring with reckless disregard. The Crown did not present evidence regarding the other six charges, and they were dismissed – it took a battle to get the full police file released – and he got supervision, community work and a $10,000 fine.

    But if you doubted what a creep he is, this from Wikipedia:

    Since the sentencing, questions have come to light over the accuracy of some of the character testimonials submitted during the sentencing phase of the case. It has been alleged that Veitch amended character references or procured some testimonials from prominent New Zealanders by saying that their testimonials would be used for a passport or job application. These testimonials were used by the judge in setting Veitch's sentence. In particular, Dame Susan Devoy and Dave Currie have said that testimonials written by them to support a passport application were edited and submitted on this unrelated matter. The Crown will take no action on the matter.

    Auckland • Since Nov 2006 • 22756 posts Report Reply

  • Sacha, in reply to Peter Darlington,

    It seems a very organised campaign paving the way for him

    For sure. His media rep was talking up the guy's changed ways on Morning Report. Sick-making.

    Ak • Since May 2008 • 19688 posts Report Reply

  • Bart Janssen, in reply to B Jones,

    I’m going to have to argue about that one as well. Sometimes it is just

    One of the principles of our justice system is that people can fuck up and then change. They get punished and then they are given the chance to become members of society again. I think that principle is really really important.

    However, if they don't change and they fail to abide by society's rules ...

    That would appear to be the case with Chris Brown at the moment.

    By contrast, as odious as I believe Veitch to be, he has not (to my knowledge) assaulted anyone since his conviction and punishment. He may not admit (to himself) his fault but he has apparently changed his behaviour.

    Auckland • Since Nov 2006 • 4451 posts Report Reply

  • B Jones,

    Bart, I agree with respect to the justice system. But we're talking about social not legal sanctions, and those are applied by individuals not the state.

    Tony Veitch's public rehabilitation isn't a danger to public safety as far as I'm aware, but it is a statement of how the public sees domestic violence - something to be forgotten and moved on from, regardless of genuine contrition.

    Wellington • Since Nov 2006 • 976 posts Report Reply

  • Rosemary McDonald, in reply to Russell Brown,

    But if you doubted what a creep he is, this from Wikipedia:

    Since the sentencing, questions have come to light over the accuracy of some of the character testimonials submitted during the sentencing phase of the case. It has been alleged that Veitch amended character references or procured some testimonials from prominent New Zealanders by saying that their testimonials would be used for a passport or job application. These testimonials were used by the judge in setting Veitch’s sentence. In particular, Dame Susan Devoy and Dave Currie have said that testimonials written by them to support a passport application were edited and submitted on this unrelated matter. The Crown will take no action on the matter.

    Hang on a minute....I'm no legal expert, but surely this is against the law....you know...lying and all that?

    If the Wikipedia entry is correct of course....but surely the creep's agent is monitoring these entries?

    Waikato, or on the road • Since Apr 2014 • 1344 posts Report Reply

  • Bart Janssen, in reply to B Jones,

    I agree to some extent but you are flicking between individual shunning and then back to "how the public sees..." that's a tricky ground to tread.

    I think there must be a distinction between how I feel as a person about Veitch and his actions and the way society as a whole responds to his actions. For what it's worth I don't get a sense that Veitch has changed and personally I wouldn't have employed him, but for some reason his bosses felt there was sufficient reason to put him back on the air (cynically I think the reason was dollars).

    The difficulty for me is I know people who have fucked up and then changed. The person is a different person. The action can still be considered wrong at the same time as accepting that the person would now no longer commit that action.

    And I'm in no way suggesting I'm particularly good at making that distinction myself ... I love me a good grudge :).

    Auckland • Since Nov 2006 • 4451 posts Report Reply

First ←Older Page 1 2 3 4 5 8 Newer→ Last

Post your response…

Please sign in using your Public Address credentials…

Login

You may also create an account or retrieve your password.