Hard News: So far from trivial
1076 Responses
First ←Older Page 1 … 18 19 20 21 22 … 44 Newer→ Last
-
No but really. I feel that my male vs female comment was misinterpreted. Why does it feel that the basis of this discussion for quite some hours now, seems to be gender-split? What if the *bitch* had broken "veitchy's" spine? Or fractured it or whatever?
-
Karen, do you mean we haven't paid enough attention to the gendered aspects of the story? I thought you were talking about the gender of posters here, I admit.
-
What if the *bitch* had broken "veitchy's" spine?
I think we'd be more surprised, a woman doing that much damage to a man without a weapon would be really unusual, so perhaps we'd be more willing to accept that it was, at least in part, a freak accident. I think we might expect the victim to have thrown a punch as well.
I also think our attitude to the victim would be different, the attitude to a female domestic violence victim is pretty ho-hum, we know it has hurt her both physically and psychologically, we know from our friends and family what that looks like, what it takes for a woman to rebuild her life. With a female victim we're talking about the physical damage and taking the psychological as a given.
If the victim was a man I think there'd be more discussion of the psychological damage, what it would take for a man who'd be beaten by a woman to put himself back together. We would be less drawing on common shared experiences and more trying to construct what it must be like.
-
that's too bad , i admire a person who is able to think and argue outside their own personal viewpoint
I suppose you'll have to get used to disappointment. I call that trolling, so I don't do it.
I wonder if the ideas that you put forward are deliberately misrepresented in order to avoid the ideas expressed.
Sigh. Not on my part, no.
-
Thanks, Anita.
I want to acknowledge too that the concerns expressed by Ian, Robbery and others about fairness are in themselves admirable - and actually something positive about being men that is under-rated. I'd feel safer with people like that in any jury.
-
Robbery: I will have to be more careful how I phrase it. I was and am agreeing with you and applauding your stand. well Done!
-
Lynching, incidentally, has almost precisely nothing to do with how we're discussing the incident. No one here has come anywhere near calling for Veitch to be hung up by a tree, burned, beaten, and have his genitals and tongue cut out, while the rest of the community has a picnic and takes postcard pictures. Nor was his infraction an imaginary one based on racist fears of miscegenation or 'uppitiness'. We were just discussing legal, justice-type stuff, because, in case you hadn't noticed, he broke his ex-girlfriend's back. In four places. And, uh, put her in a wheelchair.
But if you want to crazily exaggerate it that way, be my guest.
See, at this point in the discussion, I was thinking I would quite like to marry Danielle.
If you've followed the thread here, Karen, I think you will see that most of the people here, of any gender, think that the substance of the story printed by the Dom-Post is about right, that Veitch's apology was kind of creepy, that we would like to see the matter properly tried in the courts, but that we can understand why the person who was kicked so hard that she ended up in a wheelchair while she was recovering wants to avoid publicity, and we can understand that she might have good reason for taking the money. We're also puzzled about the legal status of that settlement, and we are puzzled by how the various employment law issues will play out.
And then Deborah said this, and now I want to marry her.
-
...but I don't think anyone has said no action should or could be taken, its all a matter of WHAT action should be taken and those being being labeled as veitch apologists are merely noting that in our legal world before you can decide "what action" you need to know details, important details. not the kind of vague details we've had so far, (shatter, snapped, broken cracked, push kick, sustained, merciless etc) but accurate details. then we can attribute the correct amount of hatin'...
now that, to me, is one of the most sensible things I've read on this thread, (not that I don't appreciate where everyone else is coming from....)
I haven't read one comment here that I think is apologist. Far from it in fact...
I personally don't think that it will get to the Courts (even though I think it should). I think a historical action such as is very difficult to prove and that Veitch's statement was very carefully worded to not admit too much.
Which means that this may remain clouded in mystery for us all.
I hope I'm wrong. -
Jackie, marry both of em I say. Damn the consequences.
-
Michael, it might be sensible but is it useful?
What is reasonable in the almost certain absence of forthcoming legal action is more the question, and I don't think after re-reading the entire thread just now (I know) that anyone has been particularly unreasonable during this conversation.
Being sensible sometimes sounds just like the usual reasons not to take action against family violence, as some posters have noted. That's why some phrases arouse suspicion. Clouded in mystery just aint good enough any more. Feel the shift.
-
I'm very happy with clouded in mystery.
The victim deserves us to respect her privacy, the last thing she needs is to know that every stranger on the street knows all the guesome details of the worst minutes of her life.
I hope the justice system does its job, and I think we should make an effort to make that happen. But nothing justifies us poking about in her life without her permission.
-
Anita, it is her almost certain lack of permission that guarantees the mystery, and I respect that.
What I'm saying is that it is not a good enough reason to wring our hands and say that that we can't possibly come to any conclusions or do anything because there isn't any legally sanctioned evidence.
-
Sacha, I never said that anyone was unreasonable, but some comments read more reasonably to me. That was one of them - and so yes, it was useful.
All and any action should be taken against family violence. Absolutely. 100% absolutely. It is not OK.
Yes it ain't good enough anymore, however the circumstances of this situation means it maybe all we have....
-
What conclusions and actions are there for us?
We can conclude that Veitch did a bad thing.
We can conclude that the justice system should do something about it.
We can express that we think that Veitch should not be held up as role model or put in positions where he might be seen that way.
We can express that we would like people and organisations associated with him to express their condemnation of his actions.
We can try to change our communities so that the next time a man is in the position Veitch was he does not act as Veitch did.
We can try to change our communities so that the next time a woman is in the position that his victim was she feels supported, and knows that she will not be blamed, shamed or attacked for her attacker's actions.
Anything else? We seem to have all the evidence we need to draw all the conclusions and take action.
-
Sacha. You make a good moderator/facilitator. Thankyou.
-
Jackie said:
And then Deborah said this, and now I want to marry her.
YES!
Of course, I'm not sure what we will do about our respective (respected?) husbands, nor about me living in Adelaide and you in Auckland. Maybe we will have to settle for a meeting of minds instead.
-
Cecilia, the link worked to some extent.
I think your point about salacious media coverage is right. I described it a couple of days ago as "media cannibalism". A self-consuming blood lust - which sounds more dramatic than it is.
It's almost second nature in a competitive market, but why do we buy into it?
Have any of the journos who've been covering this story actually 'fessed up to that?
So far the Dom Post hasn't, so the rest of us are playing catch up. -
WH,
I tentatively support the victim's decision to privately negotiate the payment of compensation in these circumstances, although I'd accept that society has an independent interest in seeing Veitch rehabilitated that might justify the involvement of the state. I couldn't say whether the counselling he has mentioned should suffice, but I'd be surprised if he hasn't sought help or been compelled to seek it by the terms of the settlement.
Sometimes crime and punishment is treated, quite wrongly in my view, as the banal preserve of talkback callers and contributors to the Herald's Your Views discussions. This attitude strikes me as reactionary, but perhaps that simply reflects the undeveloped state of my own thinking. (Although I do not share the perspective of the author, there was an interesting interview with David Blunkett in the Guardian recently.) The issue is always in the news and I'd really like to read a recent assesment of where our government is at - if anyone knows where one is?
I agree with those who have noted that the tone and content of this thread is unusual for this forum. In a perfect world this case would have attracted the same amount of concern and attention as any other, but inevitably it has recieved much more. (I personally find the public critique of his media-necessitated apology and Matthew Ridge's brave stand in the face of adversity particularly unpleasant.) Obviously Veitch's celebrity makes him no less blameworthy or less human, but maybe the old saw about one case being a tragedy and one million a statistic has some truth. </bromides>
-
A press conference, presuming you have the status to pull one, is the best medium for getting your explanation out there exactly how you want it. Veitch has years of media experience and access to the best legal and public relations advice money can buy. If his side of the story was that different, we'd know it by now.
Well maybe. I just get the feeling that everyone is viewing people in celebrity-land as making perfect decisions when under pressure. Clearly Veitch doesn't always do that.
If I was a PR consultant, god forbid, I suspect I would have been concerned about the world having TV footage of him saying "I only hit her once" or "after I hit her she fell and the bones in her back broke" or whatever. If he was a politician you'd get through the media conference by not giving out any TV quotes, and then get the sob story out there through a sympathetic media outlet, Oprah or whatever, that would allow you to phrase it in the 'best possible' way.
If I was his lawyer then I absolutely would have stopped him saying those things any more than "some of the things said in the media are untrue". By clarifying the position further he's making the admission of assault that the police would need to convict him.
It's all really quite sad. I did some research on domestic violence in the mid-90s, and in many ways we haven't changed the world at all.
-
So, what's to be one then to make the world a better place with respect to domestic violence?
Should the be changes to the law? To legal and/or police procedures/systems? To media rights to report on domestic violence cases?
Both the Veitch case, the allegations of sexual assault by England rugby players and statements by representatives of refuges seem to highlight real problems in the system: many victims of DV prefer not to make charges because they feel they will be put on trial in court and have their reputations damaged in public.
And now it seems that Kristin Dunne-Powell did go to the police eventually (though at least 6 months after the alleged incident), but decided against making a formal complaint. And it seems that Veitch only told his employers there might be a problem after this and before a settlement was reached.
-
Karen, do you mean we haven't paid enough attention to the gendered aspects of the story?
I so wouldn't go there as is apparent from comments in this thread we are not capable of discussing an issue like this without resorting to personal slights about the writers. (apologising for domestic violence etc)
I suppose you'll have to get used to disappointment. I call that trolling, so I don't do it.
and I call it debating. I've mentioned it before but in a religious studies movie I had to screen as part of my job when I was a yoof I saw a piece on the jewish 'art' of debate by their religious elite. the point of the exercise was to discuss an issue. when one person got stuck the other would chip in and say well if you said such and such then perhaps this concept is etc etc, then they would continue debating. the point was not to win, but to thoroughly explore all angles and take the discussion to its logical conclusion.
-
It's all really quite sad. I did some research on domestic violence in the mid-90s, and in many ways we haven't changed the world at all.
well said and noted kyle.
it is sad, and we as a society don't appear to be much better at accepting and dealing with our flaws as a species than we ever were. we need a fallen celebrity to motivate us into action, and then we'll most likely forget about the issue once his case has drifted from the front page. -
I so wouldn't go there as is apparent from comments in this thread we are not capable of discussing an issue like this without resorting to personal slights about the writers.
Oh jeeeezus. I feel as if I'm turning into Craig here, but what a passive-aggressive load of twaddle. If saying I note a 'weird apologist vibe' in the thread is a 'personal slight' to you then I'd hate to see your reaction if I actually *do* insult you. Subtlety: not my thing either.
The last few pages of this thread have certainly been eye-opening for me, though.
(When are Jackie and Deborah and I getting married? I can recommend Las Vegas...)
-
well said and noted kyle.
it is sad, and we as a society don't appear to be much better at accepting and dealing with our flaws as a species than we ever were. we need a fallen celebrity to motivate us into action, and then we'll most likely forget about the issue once his case has drifted from the front page.Robbery, while I often agree with you,(we seem to have a similar cynical out look, ;) I think the msm feed off this and many do like the gossip but it is pretty well recognised on PA that the media can be complete offal, so, as I try to establish my own view, (often disregarding the news/papers etc) I am sympathetic to those who think otherwise. Nobody but me is going to think like me, If manipulation by media tries and succeeds, yes, ignorance is bliss, but to be aware of that in itself, is to know and that is the power. I am a firm contributer to honesty being the best policy. I am often reminded that I was lucky my mum and dad thought so too. Sometimes I am too loud but I know if I am honest, it is not a problem, and__ that__ ,my friend, is power. Don't need to forget, if it leaves the "front page" just do your bit to make it better for everyone.
-
we seem to have a similar cynical out look,
me cynical?
and there was I thinking I was a ray of sunshine and light :)
Post your response…
This topic is closed.