Gender security – Evening Report

Bryce Edwards’ Political Roundup: The Ugly stoking of a culture war in election year

Bryce Edwards — Sun, 26 Mar 2023 22:48:29 +0000

Analysis by Dr Bryce Edwards.

Political Roundup: The Ugly stoking of a culture war in election year

This weekend saw a showdown between two tribes of contemporary gender politics: those in favour of progressing transgender rights versus women wishing to defend their spaces. It’s a debate with huge passion, outrage and consequences.

The figure at the centre of the clash was the British “trans-exclusionary radical feminist” Posie Parker, aka Kellie-Jay Keen-Minshull, who attempted to hold a “Let Women Speak” rally at Albert Park in Auckland on Saturday. She was forced offstage by a counter-rally for trans rights and has fled back to the UK.

Saturday’s clash of cultures is a sign of where politics is heading in New Zealand – towards a fully-fledged culture war. This is something normally more associated with American politics – but also increasingly in places like the UK.

The Ugly opportunism of culture wars

There was an element of pantomime on both sides over the last week. Posie Parker thrives on controversy. She might be complaining now about her treatment in New Zealand, but by holding her rally in a public place like Albert Park she was provoking opposition and stoking tensions, hoping to become something of a martyr.

She won. She made global news, fuelling publicity in the UK and US markets where she carries out her main fundraising. She will now be even better equipped to push her particularly toxic form of gender politics.

Likewise, those opposing Parker were rather opportunistic in arguing that she is a fascist and that her beliefs were such a danger to the public that she had to be banned from the country.

They must have known they were giving the previously-unknown visitor huge amounts of free publicity and therefore helping get her views out to a wider audience. As broadcaster Heather du Plessis-Allan argued yesterday, “Parker’s opponents made sure that she was in the news most of the week”, and “They helped her spread her message. They played right into her hands.”

The Greens represent one side of the polarised divide. MP Golriz Ghahraman tweeted on her way to the rally: “So ready to fight N*zis”. Co-leader and Government Minister Marama Davidson put out a video to say that she was “so proud” of the protesters. And obviously wearing her hat of Minister for Prevention of Family and Sexual Violence she used the event to declare that only “white cis men” commit violence. Such messages will go down very well amongst the party’s support base, which is increasingly sensitive to the need to make progress on gender issues.

Will culture wars dominate the 2023 general election?

The New Zealand Herald’s Fran O’Sullivan wrote on Saturday that “The ‘culture wars’ are set to be a defining issue in the 2023 election.” And she bemoans the Posie Parker tour dominating politics in a week in which the Treasury and the Reserve Bank confirmed “that New Zealand will tip into a technical recession this year”.

According to O’Sullivan, the “rainbow community leaders went into overdrive” producing “an illustration of how quickly a cultural issue can consume public discourse.”

The implication is that the public is going into an election campaign in which there will be less debate and focus on addressing the cost of living crisis. And last week the Government released a major evaluation of their latest progress in eliminating child poverty – which tragically showed that real progress had been made. This vital issue was completely overshadowed by the Posie Parker visit, providing a warning of what type of issues might dominate the public sphere in the lead-up to the general election.

Who benefits from a heightened focus on cultural issues?

The two parliamentary parties stoking the culture wars are Act and the Greens. Those parties will gain a much higher profile if cultural issues keep rising to the fore. The Greens will pick up middle class supporters whose main focus is on social justice issues, while Act might be able to pick up more anti-woke working class supporters in provincial New Zealand.

Squeezed in the middle are the major parties of Labour and National, who are desperate to stay out of it all, aware that middle New Zealand is less enamoured by such debates and concerns. Labour, especially under new leader Chris Hipkins is trying to shuck off the woke association the party developed under Jacinda Ardern. Likewise, Christopher Luxon is trying to get rid of the reactionary image National sometimes had under Judith Collins.

On the outside is New Zealand First, with Winston Peters trying to get into the culture wars game. He’s positioned himself, along with Act, as being opposed to the woke elite’s focus on what he calls social engineering. Peters gave his State of the Nation speech on Friday in which he claimed: “There is a full-scale attack being waged on New Zealanders’ culture, identity and sense of belonging.” He complained that nowadays “there’s an awful tribalism in New Zealand politics”.

Peters pushed all the buttons on the culture war issues – claiming that the education system was the victim of “virtue signalling tinkerers”, and that government departments were more focused on relabelling themselves with Māori names than actually doing the mahi. Co-governance was also targeted as an elite agenda that would take away the “one person, one vote” Western tradition of democracy.

What are culture wars anyway?

There’s a whole new terminology that needs unpacking and defining in the new landscape of culture wars. We have been through versions associated with the “progressive” side of this debate such as political correctness, cancel culture, identity politics, and now “woke” politics. To what extent these terms are useful continues to be debated. Perhaps the better term for the milieu of more middle class progressive demands is “social justice politics”.

Much of it is associated with leftwing politics but, in reality, the left is divided over culture wars. The “cultural left” side tends to be connected with more elite, educated, and middle class activists. The more traditional, or working class orientated “old left”, is still focused on economic inequality and improving the lot of those economically disadvantaged as a whole, with a focus on universalism and civil rights.

Even the term “culture war” needs some unpacking. New Zealand lawyer Thomas Cranmer provides the following useful definition: “In essence, they are political conflicts that revolve around social and cultural issues, such as gender, race, sexuality, religion, and identity. The term was coined in the United States during the 1990s to describe the heated debates that were taking place between conservatives and progressives over issues like abortion, affirmative action, and gay rights. However, the scope of culture wars has since expanded to encompass a wide range of issues, from free speech and cancel culture to critical race theory and the role of the media in shaping public opinion.”

Problems of an escalating culture war

According to Act Party deputy leader Brooke Van Velden, New Zealand risks becoming “a divided society where cancel culture spirals out of control.” Similarly, in the weekend James Shaw pointed to the Posie Parker controversy, and said “Her arrival is the kind of risk that metastasises into broader political violence.” He told Newsroom that “There’s a real possibility we will see some form of political violence this year and someone will be injured, or worse.”

Democracy might also be harmed if the culture wars dominate this year’s election. An ugly fight over transgender politics, co-governance, or race relations would be one that alienates many voters, and reduces participation in politics. Some of the public will turn away in disgust, confusion, or fear about culture wars. The intolerance and outrage that often occurs in these debates can make ordinary voters feel unwelcome taking part in discussion and debate, or even in voting.

This doesn’t mean that the issues at the heart of culture wars are unimportant or should be suppressed. For example, there are vitally important issues and reforms that need to be progressed in terms of gender and transgender rights.

This is also a point made well by Thomas Cranmer: “it is important to note that culture wars are not inherently bad. They can provide an opportunity for different groups to engage in meaningful dialogue and debate over important issues. They can also bring attention to marginalised communities and push for greater social justice and equity.”

However, he points out that culture war debates often lack genuine, good-faith engagement: “The problem arises when culture wars become polarised and divisive, with each side demonising the other and refusing to engage in productive dialogue. This is where New Zealand currently finds itself.”

Solutions to culture wars: Critical thinking and open debate

The main problem in culture wars arise when there is no room for nuanced discussion, openness or a willingness to learn from others and opponents. Overall, there is a need for healthier debate and engagement in New Zealand politics.

This is something political columnist Janet Wilson wrote about in the weekend, arguing that we have a declining culture of critical thinking and open-mindedness: “That growing inability to think critically enables what Illinois University Ilana Redstone calls The Certainty Trap, that sense of self-righteousness that comes with having brutally judged, then condemned and dismissed, someone with whom we disagree. And when it comes to political debate, Redstone says The Certainty Trap holds us back and puts up walls.”

We need to develop our skills, Wilson says, “that includes being open-minded, having a respect for evidence and reason, being able to consider other viewpoints and perspectives, not being stuck in one position, as well as clarity and precision of thought.”

Similarly, Thomas Cranmer argues that we will deal better with culture war issues when we foster a culture of humility and tolerance: “all parties, regardless of their political affiliation, need to be willing to engage in constructive dialogue and debate over important issues. This also means that we need to be willing to listen to the perspectives and experiences of those who may hold different views from our own.”

Leftwing activist and blogger Martyn Bradbury attended Saturday’s rally and counter-rally and was appalled by both sides. He says: “Right now the entire community need to actually step back and consider how the militant cancel culture element of the debate has alienated everyone else and created the environment where Posie Parker can thrive.”

New Zealand is facing huge problems which require critical thinking and debate. We won’t be well served if such political debate and the upcoming election are highjacked by the hate and tribal opportunism we saw over the weekend.

Further reading on the Posie Parker rally and protest

Scott Palmer (Newshub): National, Greens, ACT, Labour clash over Posie Parker’s rally, freedom of speech
RNZ: Posie Parker protest: Christopher Luxon says right to free speech must be protected
1News: Q+A: Deputy PM says she wouldn’t have gone to Posie Parker counter-protest
Martyn Bradbury (Daily Blog): Sooooo, is Marama Davidson right? Do white cis males cause the violence in the world?
Chris Lynch Media: “I know who causes violence in the world, and it’s white cis men” says Minister for the Prevention of Family Violence and Sexual Violence
———-
Fran O’Sullivan (Herald): Culture wars become the new front line as election nears (paywalled)
Rachel Smalley (Today FM): I feel a very lonely voice at the moment in the mainstream media
Thomas Cranmer: Violent Suppression of free speech: Kellie-Jay Keen’s assault by transgender activists in New Zealand sparks global outrage
Martyn Bradbury (Daily Blog): Posie Parker brawl highlights Woke Left have lost ability to persuade – the only winner is ACT
Martyn Bradbury (Daily Blog): Toxic Trans Troll cancelled & deplatformed (literally) – Thug Veto wins battle but loses Free Speech War
Caitlin Griffin (Kiwiblog): Posie Parker and the Week the Media Lost Its Collective Mind
Gordon Campbell: On the Keen-Minshull visit
Deborah Coddington (Stuff): Posie Parker and The Battle of The Atlantic
Heather du Plessis-Allan (Herald): Posie Parker’s opponents played into her hands (paywalled)
Herald Editorial: Did Posie Parker get what she was after with Auckland visit? (paywalled)
Sasha Borissenko (Herald): Free speech too convenient a justification for thinly disguised hate speech (paywalled)
Steven Cowan: The heel of authoritarian politics stomps down on Posie Parker
Steven Cowan: Doing a hatchet job on Posie
Madeline Chapman (Spinoff): Anti-trans activism is extremely harmful. It’s also a confusingly wasteful use of time
Karl du Fresne: The battle for free speech won’t be won by hiding in the shadows
Karl du Fresne: A Day of Shame
Lee Suckling (Herald): Behind the Posie Parker row – The simple way to understand the trans experience
Anna Rawhiti-Connell (Spinoff): An alternative view of the ‘angry’ protest crowd
Liz Gordon: A very New Zealand protest
Tina Ngata: Transphobia is Settler-Colonialism
Jo Bartosch (Spiked-online): The Sheilas will not be silenced
———-
Stuff: Hate speech or free speech? Clashes in Auckland reignite debate
RNZ: Posie Parker departs New Zealand; JK Rowling blasts protest as ‘repellent’
Isaac Davison (Herald): Activist Posie Parker seen checking in at Auckland Airport escorted by police after counter-protest shuts down NZ tour
Tess McClure (Guardian): Anti-trans activist Posie Parker ends New Zealand tour after chaotic protests at event
Matthew Scott (Newsroom): Posie Parker drowned out by thousands
Nadine Roberts and Erin Gourley (Stuff): Thousands reject anti-trans movement at rallies against Posie Parker tour
RNZ: Marama Davidson hit by motorcyclist after Posie Parker protest
Caroline Williams (Stuff): Green Party co-leader Marama Davidson knocked over by motorcyclist
Craig Cooper (Herald): Buckle up your rainbow-coloured belt, here come the Tamakis
Herald: Brian Tamaki’s Destiny Church protest collides with Posie Parker objectors in Auckland CBD
Sophie Harris (Stuff): Tomato juice thrower ‘ready to face consequences if necessary’ following Posie Parker incident
Caroline Williams (Stuff): All the weird things Kiwis have thrown at people during protests
———-
Heather du Plessis-Allan (Newstalk ZB): Why did Posie’s opponents bother with the court case?
Karl du Fresne: In different circumstances, you could almost admire their chutzpah
Jonathan Milne (Newsroom): Posie Parker wins the beautiful freedom to make an ugly argument
Herald Editorial: Posie Parker presents an opportunity (paywalled)
Shaneel Lal (Herald): Why I’m organising a counterprotest against Kellie-Jay Keen-Minshull/Posie Parker in Auckland
1News: ‘Potential’ for violence at Posie Parker rally
Herald: Posie Parker: Police concerns for welfare, Wellington security company reprisal fears
Herald: Posie Parker: Wellington security firm pulls out at 11th hour ahead of New Zealand tour

Other items of interest and importance today

PARLIAMENT, ELECTION
Luke Malpass (Stuff): ACT declares almost $1 million in one day from big money donors
Colin Peacock (RNZ): Mediawatch: Lifting the lid on lobbying, ministers – and the media
Luke Malpass (Stuff): The week ahead in parliament: Reminders of money and some juicy select committees
Claire Trevett (Herald): How National’s Christopher Luxon and NZ First leader Winston Peter are starting the Chris Hipkins fightback (paywalled)
Glenn McConnell (Stuff): The big issues facing te ao Māori ahead of Election 2023
Grant Duncan: The Greens’ new deal
Jo Moir (Newsroom): Risk of political violence this election high – Shaw
Geraden Cann (Stuff): AI could wreak havoc on the next election – what are the parties’ policies?
1News: Inside Parliament: Bombshell in the Bay, polls, policy and demotions
Adam Pearse and Claire Trevett (Herald): Beehive Diaries: Census’ extra-marital affair, dancing queens and who won Chris of the week? (paywalled)
Victor Billot (Newsroom): An Ode for .. Poll loser Luxon
Johnny Blades (RNZ): The House: Keeping the flow: the use of te reo at Parliament

NZ FIRST
Grant Duncan: Can Winston Peters make another come-back?
Jamie Ensor (Newshub): Winston Peters claims Kiwis’ identity under ‘full-scale attack’, will ditch ‘woke virtue signalling’, takes aim at Jacinda Ardern’s resignation
Glenn McConnell (Stuff): Winston Peters starts campaign with attacks on bilingualism and ‘the cultural cabal’
Felix Desmarais (1News): Winston Peters: NZ First would remove Māori names from Govt depts
RNZ: Winston Peters rails against secret ‘woke agenda’ in campaign speech
Mark Quinlivan (Newshub): Newshub Nation host Rebecca Wright grills Winston Peters on choosing Labour in 2017 after claiming ‘we need to take the country back’
Amelia Wade (Newshub): Winston Peters says Labour hid He Puapua – but Newshub can reveal he was among those who commissioned it

LOCAL GOVERNMENT, THREE WATERS
Andrea Vance (Stuff): Wayne Brown just helped the Government in its grab for local power
David Farrar (Kiwiblog): Auckland Council quits LGNZ
RNZ: Auckland Local Government New Zealand exit ‘expensive and rash’, critics say
Erin Johnson (Stuff): Will the Local Government exit cost Auckland Council more than staying?
Bridie Witton, Erin Gourley and Jo Lines-MacKenzie (Stuff): Mayors push for collaboration, cooperation after Wayne Brown’s ‘disappointing’ exit from Local Government NZ
Steven Walton (Stuff): ‘Better to be in the tent’ of Local Government New Zealand, says Christchurch mayor
Bridie Witton (Stuff): ‘800 members getting pissed and dancing’? Local Government NZ says it never hosted its annual conference in the Bay of Islands
Benjamin Plummer (Herald): Auckland Council quits Local Government NZ: LGNZ chief executive refutes Wayne Brown’s claims of a ‘boozy’ conference in the Bay of Islands
Ireland Hendry-Tennent (Newshub): Local Government NZ hits back after Auckland Mayor Wayne Brown says organisation’s heavy drinking not helping ratepayers
Todd Niall (Stuff): Wayne Brown launches new review of Auckland’s port future
Oliver Lewis (BusinessDesk): Auckland council doing ‘confidential’ port review (paywalled)
Andrew Bevin (Newsroom): Airport share sales fraught with difficulty – but retaining ownership is costly
Todd Niall (Stuff): Former chief science advisor to PM wants fix for Auckland’s at-risk Southern Initiative
Joseph Los’e (Herald): Independent Māori Stat Board to Auckland Mayor Wayne Brown: Leave our putea alone – and we’re not moving
Samantha Gee (RNZ): West Coast mayors have ‘heartening conversation’ over water reform fears
David Hill (RNZ): Minor tweaks expected in Three Waters ‘reset
Julie Jacobson (Stuff): Call for lower fees, with 54% of Wellington’s on-street car parks in use
Tom Hunt (Stuff): Wellington council revokes police power to trespass on Anzac Day
Hamish McNeilly (Stuff): Accusations of ‘autocratic’ leadership and creating dissent – how karakia divided a council
Jonathan Leask (Local Democracy Reporting): Fair Go’s claims about Ashburton’s recycling efforts rubbished

EDUCATION
Ben Moore (BusinessDesk): There’s nothing basic about the ‘basics’ of education (paywalled)
Luke Malspass (Stuff): Why Christopher Luxon’s education policy should have been launched by Labour
Katie Scotcher (RNZ): National’s policy aims to school Labour on education decline
Dileepa Fonseka (BusinessDesk): Education assumes its rightful place on the debate stage (paywalled)
Cathy Buntting (The Conversation): Teachers need a lot of things right now, but another curriculum ‘rewrite’ isn’t one of them
Ripu Bhatia (Stuff): National’s education policy puts neurodiverse at risk – Dyslexia Foundation
1News: Q+A: More prescriptive curriculum helps neurodiverse students – National
Mike Boon: It’s official: National have an education policy
Gabrielle McCulloch (Stuff): Inside the comms ‘mess’ of school closures during the Auckland floods
Lee Kenny (Stuff): Secondary and area school teachers will strike again next week
Lee Kenny (Stuff): Kindergarten and primary school teachers rule out strike action next week
———-
Jamie Morton (Herald): Revealed: How AUT move to shut NZ’s only radio observatory sparked a top-level Govt scramble (paywalled)
Alex Penk: From uniform fonts to uniform thoughts
Jonathan Killick (Stuff): ‘Like a family’: Artists and industry say MAINZ closure bad for Kiwi music

HEALTH
Rachel Thomas (Stuff): ‘Not a good time to get sick’: data lays bare the burgeoning crunch points in our health system
Nicholas Jones (Herald): Waikato Hospital cardiac surgery patients caught in delays; overdue cases sent to Auckland, Wellington
Michael Neilson (Herald): ‘Significant impact’: MSD dental grants near $15m in first three months of policy (paywalled)
Fiona Ellis (ODT): DCC urges public to protest hospital cuts
Marc Daalder (Newsroom): Health advice scrubbed due to anti-trans pressure
Jem Traylen (BusinessDesk): $1 Billion of exports jeopardised by Therapeutic Products Bill (paywalled)
Stephen Forbes (Local Democracy Reporting): New unit aims to tackle south Auckland’s huge obesity problem
Lyric Waiwiri-Smith (Stuff): Ozempic in New Zealand: How could the drug affect Kiwis?
Helen Harvey (Stuff): A lifetime of health experience already behind new Tui Ora chief executive

COVID
Jenée Tibshraeny (Interest): Treasury still can’t say how much Covid money has physically been spent (paywalled)
Jamie Morton (Herald): Explained: What to know ahead of NZ’s next ‘big boost’ against Covid-19 (paywalled)
Sam Olley (RNZ): Negative excess mortality sign NZ got it right with Covid-19 response – Sir Ashley Bloomfield
Hannah Martin (Stuff): By the numbers: Three years since Aotearoa’s first Covid-19 lockdown

FOREIGN AFFAIRS
1News: Q+A: China’s challenge in stepping up diplomatic efforts
Thomas Manch (Stuff): New Zealand won’t ban TikTok like Australia or the US. Here’s why
Don Brash: New Zealand’s foreign policy dilemma
Jane Patterson (RNZ): Mahuta – ‘We take seriously’ NZ’s relationship with China
Reuters: China’s top diplomat: Confident about ties with New Zealand
Thomas Manch (Stuff): Foreign Minister Nanaia Mahuta meets top-ranking Chinese diplomats in Beijing
Kelvin McDonald (Whakaata Māori): China visit: Foreign Minister emphasises NZ’s interest in ‘peaceful and stable’ Pacific region
1News: Mahuta tells China of concerns over lethal aid to Russia
Agence France-Presse (Guardian): New Zealand foreign minister tells China of ‘deep concerns’ over rights abuses and Taiwan
AP: Foreign Minister Nanaia Mahuta tells China of concerns about lethal aid to Russia for its war in Ukraine

EMISSIONS TRADING SCHEME, FORESTRY
Anne Salmond (Newsroom): Greenwashing and the forestry industry in NZ
Aaron Smale (Newsroom): East Coast farm collapses after Māori Carbon group takes over
Angus Kebbell (Interest): David Norton says aspects of carbon farming with exotics are “ecologically fraudulent”
Brent Edwards (NBR): Treasury’s reservations about advice on ETS settings (paywalled)
Jamie Gray (Herald): Government review of Emissions Trading Scheme could be far-reaching – ANZ (paywalled)
RNZ: Businesses currently encouraged to offset emissions by planting trees – economist
Guy Trafford (Interest): Farmers and foresters need to take responsibility for the impacts their decisions have on the wider community

CLIMATE CHANGE, EXTREME WEATHER, INFRASTRUCTURE
Diane Brand (Newsroom): Bring back the Ministry of Works
Hamish Cardwell (RNZ): Managed retreat: How the rest of the world handles it
Damien Venuto (Herald): The Front Page: Adaptation vs mitigation – What should NZ do about climate change?
Brent Edwards (NBR): New Zealand’s risk assessment needs to improve (paywalled)
Tom Dillane (Herald): Inside Wayne Brown’s flood review: Staff interrogated in ‘minute detail’, no call to Minister McAnulty (paywalled)
Amanda Cropp (Stuff): DIY work on flood-damaged houses could expose asbestos, putting residents, volunteer helpers and tradies at risk
RNZ: Warning of asbestos contamination in cyclone clean-ups
RNZ: Work underway on $5m stopbank upgrade to protect Dunedin Airport, farmland

ENVIRONMENT, CONSERVATION
Tess McClure (Guardian): ‘Like you’re in a horror movie’: pollution leaves New Zealand wetlands irreversibly damaged
Kirsty Johnson (Stuff): An environmental disaster was waiting to happen in Tolaga Bay. No one listened
Craig Ashworth (Local Democracy Reporting): Lost species, missing seaweed, dead eels: 40 years on the Taranaki coast
RNZ: 1080 drops planned for Mt Messenger for pest control

INEQUALITY
Max Rashbrooke (Stuff): How will Hipkins tackle stagnating progress on child poverty?
1News: Q+A: Benefits increasing but more investment needed, minister claims

ECONOMY
Jenée Tibshraeny (Herald): Revealed: Finance Minister Grant Robertson sought advice from Reserve Bank on introducing a bank tax (paywalled)
Dan Brunskill (Interest): The pandemic made you poorer but public policy made you feel rich
Liam Dann (Herald): The big squeeze – RBNZ warning to Kiwis needs to include Government spending (paywalled)
Jenny Ruth (BusinessDesk): Inflation winners and breaking things (paywalled)
Shane Te Pou (Herald): Don’t cast workers on the scrapheap (paywalled)
Gordon Stuart (Stuff): Global banking crisis: we won’t escape the fallout
Hillmarè Schulze (NBR): We have a recession every 10 years – it should not be a surprise (paywalled)

HOUSING
Benn Bathgate (Stuff): ‘Unintended consequences’ – Ministry admits Rotorua MSD motels did spike crime
Laura Smith (Local Democracy Reporting): Rotorua emergency housing motels positive experience for many – government-commissioned report
Christine Rovoi (Stuff): Homelessness, housing insecurity remain significant for Māori – study
Duncan Greive (Spinoff): Inside the radical plan to build ‘the new state house’ and change renting forever
Susan Edmunds (Stuff): Kids versus a mortgage? Why getting into your first home is harder with children
Susan Edmunds (Stuff): How much higher are home loan rates going to go?
Erin Gourley (Stuff): Housing plan for former prison site ‘not an exclusive enclave’

Protect women accused of ‘sorcery’ and punish attackers, watchdog tells PNG

Asia Pacific Report — Fri, 11 Jun 2021 11:18:02 +0000

Asia Pacific Report newsdesk

The Papua New Guinean government should protect women accused of practicing “sorcery” from violence and hold the attackers to account, says the advocacy group Human Rights Watch.

At least five women have been attacked in the past three months since March 2021 — one of whom was killed.

“The Papua New Guinea government should urgently investigate all cases of violence following sorcery accusations, and prosecute those responsible,” Stephanie McLennan, senior manager of Asia initiatives at Human Rights Watch, said in a statement today.

“Gender-based violence is a persistent problem in Papua New Guinea, and the government is doing very little to stop it.”

Violence following allegations of sorcery is common in Papua New Guinea, with the most recent reported case on May 7 in Hela Province.

Mary Kopari was accused of sorcery following the death of a young boy in her village. She was tied up and burned alive in Komo-Magarima District.

The attack was recorded on video and reported by Papua New Guinea television. Although the police know the identity of some of the attackers, no arrests have yet been reported.

Surge in covid cases
Because sorcery accusations often arise in response to an unexpected death or illness in a community, the increase in such violence may be related to a surge in confirmed cases of covid-19 in Papua New Guinea.

On or around March 30, in Goroka, Eastern Highlands, a 45-year-old woman and her 19-year-old daughter were accused of causing the woman’s husband’s death, believed to be from covid-19.

They were held captive by the husband’s relatives and tortured with hot iron rods. Police rescued the pair.

On April 25, police rescued two women after a group of about 20 men tortured them in Port Moresby. The men accused the women of practising sorcery and killing a woman who had recently died.

The women were treated for severe burns and knife wounds.

“The Papua New Guinea government should address the root causes of sorcery accusations, including the lack of basic knowledge among the public about health problems,” McLennan said.

“The authorities should act swiftly and effectively to correct misinformation about deaths from covid-19 to prevent more sorcery accusations and attacks.”

Most attacks target women
While there are past cases of violence based on accusations of sorcery targeting men, the majority of these attacks target women. Such attacks are part of the larger problem of high rates of gender-based violence and impunity for the abusers in Papua New Guinea.

A larger problem of high rates of gender-based violence and impunity for the abusers in papua New Guinea. Image: PNG Report

In November 2020 a coalition of Parliament members convened the country’s first national summit on gender-based violence. A special parliamentary committee on the issue held its first hearings on May 24 and 25, and will continue its inquiry until June 30.

Dr Fiona Hukula, gender specialist for the Pacific Islands Forum, testified at the May hearings about violence against women accused of sorcery, saying that they are are “often tortured, often cut, sexually violated, their clothes are removed and they are often kept in captivity”.

As Human Rights Watch has documented, greater resources and increased political will are needed to respond to all forms of gender-based violence in Papua New Guinea. At the recent parliamentary hearings, East Sepik Governor Allan Bird said “there are 1.4 million cases of GBV [gender-based violence] every year in PNG … and only 100 convictions achieved”.

Papua New Guinea will participate in November in the UN Human Rights Council’s Universal Periodic Review process under which member countries review the human rights situation in the country.

The Human Rights Watch submission for that process highlighted the issue of gender-based violence and violence following accusations of sorcery.

“Papua New Guinea’s leaders should order the police to take gender-based violence seriously, provide sufficient resources for officials to prosecute these crimes, and provide all survivors with medical treatment, shelter and access to support services,” McLennan said.

“The parliamentary inquiry should lead the way in exploring options for early warning, protection, and dispute resolution mechanisms that can help prevent such crimes.

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

PNG women ‘as good as dead’ say protesters calling for tougher laws

Asia Pacific Report — Sun, 28 Jun 2020 03:17:56 +0000

Pacific Media Watch

Protesters in Papua New Guinea and on social media have launched calls for tougher laws to protect women and girls from gender-based violence and brutality after the torture and death of a 19-year-old mother of two this week.

The death of Jenelyn Kennedy on Tuesday after six days of torture, allegedly by her partner Bosip Kaiwi – who is now in police custody charged over her killing – has shocked the nation.

Papuan New Guinean women “are as good as dead” when they become “victims of DV (domestic violence)”, said one social media writer who penned an open letter in protest to Prime Minister James Marape.

The poster, Melanie Palili, wrote:

“Dear Mr Prime Minister James Marape

“Knowing that the system has failed Jenelyn Kennedy, the latest victim of domestic violence, is enough to know that all PNG women are good as dead if and when they become victims of DV.

“There is an overwhelming feeling of hopelessness right now!!

“How do you expect Papua New Guinean women to live your vision to take back PNG and make it a rich nation when you have a system that is not working effectively to protect lives that are equally important as men, lives that also contribute to nation building.

“It is too late to protect Jenelyn now, but I hope Jenelyn’s case will bother you enough to intervene and give her the justice she deserves and protect lives of every other women who are being abused.

Bosip Kaiwi … accused over Jenelyn Kennedy’s death. Image: PNG Police

“Mr Prime Minister, the first national goal or directive principle as outlined in our Constitution states that “every person to be dynamically involved in the process of freeing himself or herself from every form of domination or oppression so that each m

an or woman will have the opportunity to develop as a whole person in relationship with others”.

“Create that environment for us. Let every Papua New Guinean woman have a voice in this country!!”

A police statement today denied social media postings and rumours claiming that the suspect in Kennedy’s killing had been released on bail.

“Our CID Homicide and Forensic Science team [has] worked tirelessly, and still are to build up a good case against the suspect,” Chief Superintendent N’Dranou Perou said in a statement on social media.

“[The suspect] was formally arrested and charged and will appear in court on Monday, 29th June 2020, to ensure his warrant is issued for transfer to CS Bomana.

Today’s Sunday Chronicle front page report on the brutal death of a young mother. Image: Screenshot PMC

“We would like to put to rest certain posts being shared on Facebook that the suspect has been granted bail. Police have no jurisdiction to grant bail for such serious cases. Only the courts do.

“Senior officers have physically checked and confirmed that Mr Bosip Kaiwi is in police custody, locked up in a holding cell at Boroko Police Station.”

In an ununusual step, the police also released images of Kaiwi being held in the cells at Port Moresby’s Boroko Police Station.

The death of Jenelyn Kennedy follows a spate of gender-based violence cases in Papua New Guinea, including elite PNG athlete Debbie Kaore, who was brutally assaulted by her partner in front of her children.

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

Bryce Edwards’ Political Roundup: Chelsea Manning visit exposes hypocrisy on left and right

Bryce Edwards — Wed, 29 Aug 2018 21:42:47 +0000

Bryce Edwards’ Political Roundup: Chelsea Manning visit exposes hypocrisy on left and right

[caption id="attachment_13635" align="alignright" width="150"] Dr Bryce Edwards.[/caption] The latest free speech debate – ignited by the National Party opposing Chelsea Manning coming to speak in New Zealand next month – illustrates that many on the political left and right are actually in broad agreement in their desire to severely limit free speech when it suits them. All they differ on is who should be allowed the right to speak. In the case of the left, they generally want the likes of the recent Canadian alt-right speakers suppressed. The political right wants anti-war dissidents like Chelsea Manning kept out. [caption id="attachment_16936" align="aligncenter" width="1200"] Chelsea Manning at protest in front of A Night For Freedom. By Manolo Luna – CC via Wikimedia.org.[/caption] To read about National’s opposition to the infamous US whistleblower Chelsea Manning being allowed into the country, see the Herald’s article, National’s Michael Woodhouse calls for whistleblower Chelsea Manning to be banned from New Zealand. In this, immigration spokesperson Michael Woodhouse explains National’s objection: “She was convicted of a crime for which she has absolutely no remorse and not only that, she intends to profit from it by selling tickets to meetings where she talks about exactly what she did. I don’t think that’s appropriate and I think the associate minister should be declining it.” In response, the Free Speech Coalition has condemned National, with spokesperson Chris Trotter quoted saying, “As a democracy, we have a right to be informed on the activities of our friends on the international stage. New Zealanders deserve a chance to hear her speak.” The report says, “He gave examples of other convicted criminals allowed into New Zealand – including Nelson Mandela”. For more on all this, see Henry Cooke’s National wants Chelsea Manning barred from New Zealand. Woodhouse is also quoted saying, “I’m a firm believer in free speech. But I don’t believe there is a basis to say that her crimes are victimless.” Woodhouse also cites New Zealand’s relationship with the US, suggesting that this would be negatively affected. For a very strong enunciation of National’s position, see Mike Hosking’s column this morning: Chelsea Manning is a crook, keep her out of NZ. For Hosking there’s an important principle at stake, which over-rides free speech considerations: “Manning would not be here if it wasn’t for her criminality. If it wasn’t for the stealing and leaking of classified paperwork that ran the risk of undermining American security, you would never have heard of her. Far less be in a position to consider buying tickets and lining her, and her promoters’, pockets.” Hosking explains that there’s a tension between political freedoms and law and order: “So on a free speech platform Manning deserves a go, if it were not for the critical fact that she’s a criminal – and wants to make money from criminal activity. That is fundamentally, morally, and intellectually wrong. And not just in this specific case, but the precedent it sets. If crooks are free to create income from illegality, where do we draw that line? That’s a Pandora’s Box we do not want to open.” Not everyone on the political right agrees with this approach, of course (even if they strongly disagree with Manning’s actions). For example, rightwing commentator Matthew Hooton‏ (@MatthewHootonNZ) has tweeted: “Chelsea Manning is a thief, a traitor and a disgrace. And she should be welcome to come to New Zealand to speak, including at @AklCouncil premises. And @WoodhouseMP should be sacked as @NZNationalParty immigration spokesperson.” Similarly, Act leader David Seymour has written an opinion piece to say, It doesn’t matter what I think of Chelsea Manning. Let her in. In this he argues it’s in the public interest that Manning is allowed to come and talk. Here’s Seymour’s main point: “The reason I have taken the position that she should be admitted is that ministerial discretion should depend on the public interest. It is in New Zealanders’ interest to be able to hear the views of important figures in recent global events and make up our own minds about them. It is not in New Zealand’s interests, as National’s Michael Woodhouse has suggested, to become a client state of the U.S., making decisions based on what Michael guesses will please them.” Conservative commentator Karl du Fresne is also aghast, blogging today to ask: What on earth was Woodhouse thinking? He concludes: “Unfortunately the National Party has demonstrated that its support for free speech runs out the moment there’s a risk of upsetting an important ally. And this is the party that champions individual freedom? Pfft.” In general, though, it seems the left has come out in support of Manning’s visit, and the right against. Therefore, it’s the mirror opposite of the ideological positions on the visit of the Canadian alt-right duo. For this reason, blogger Martyn Bradbury has expressed his frustration with both sides: “There isn’t just hypocrisy from the Right on this, watching those on the woke left demanding free speech now with Chelsea when barely a month ago they were screaming censorship shows the intellectual bankruptcy that has overcome so many in this debate” – see: If crypto-fascists can be allowed into the country – a human rights legend like Chelsea Manning should be allowed to as well. Bradbury suggests that in trying to clampdown on reactionary voices, the left have simply set a precedent for the right to do the same about progressive voices: “when we deplatform, we open the door for the right to play the same game.” Danyl Mclauchlan makes a similar point in his excellent column, Chelsea Manning and the limits of free speech absolutism. His conclusion is that in the wake of the latest free speech controversy, it “seems like a good time to point out to all the supporters of deplatforming and restricting public speech that the more power you give the state to determine who can and cannot speak, the more power you give to people like Michael Woodhouse, who was a minister just over a year ago, and may easily be one again.” Mclauchlan’s opinion piece also seeks to explain how the National Party could so easily go from championing free speech values in recent months, to suddenly switching sides: “National is also – like most right-wing political parties the world over – a party that somehow believes in limited government and individual rights while simultaneously championing the expansion and empowerment of state security agencies, maximising their ability to spy on their own citizens while minimising any attempts to hold them accountable. Manning’s actions and pro-transparency activism are a direct attack on the legitimacy of the modern surveillance state that National were so deeply committed to in government. So Manning is an ideological enemy of the National Party.” I’ve also written today about the problems of National being so “willing to clamp down on political freedoms based on the politics and ideologies of the individuals involved” – see my Newsroom column, Let Chelsea Manning speak. And I also suggest that the more censorious left have opened the gates to Manning’s possible barring from New Zealand: “In fact, progressives and leftists might be suddenly re-thinking their stance now that one of their own is under threat of being banned from New Zealand. Unfortunately, the New Zealand left has been working hard to convince the public that it is okay to ban people based on their politics and backgrounds. In seeking to curtail some less than savoury individuals, the left have handed over to the right the ideological ammunition to then attempt to do the same to those that the left might favour speaking here.” Therefore, it’s not surprising to see that the arguments many on the left are making in favour of Manning being allowed to visit rely on the idea that she is a special case, rather than arguing for political freedoms. For example, Green MP Golriz Ghahraman makes a strong case for the US dissident to be regarded as a hero, but her logic isn’t based on principles of political freedoms – see her opinion piece: Criticism over Chelsea Manning’s NZ visit is about condemning whistleblowers. In reply to Ghahraman’s arguments, leftwing blogger Steven Cowan accuses her of hypocrisy: “Ghahraman clearly has a very flexible view of what freedom of speech is all about. While she continues to harbour an unhealthy urge to shut out opinions she can’t tolerate, she shouldn’t be surprised that she should be charged with being a hypocrite when she defends Chelsea Manning’s right to speak just because she happens to agree with Manning’s political views” – see: Golriz Ghahram: Guilty of hypocrisy. Similarly, Gordon Campbell puts an excellent case for Manning to be allowed to speak in New Zealand, saying “if we let Manning into the country we might hear some intelligent, informed comment on the difficulties faced by the transgender community, and this would be of positive use to the deliberations of Parliament, as well as to the wider public” – see: National’s crusade against Chelsea Manning. Ultimately, however, Campbell agrees with Woodhouse that we have to take each speaker on their individual merits, and that there’s good reason to treat the alt-right Canadians differently to Manning. Where Woodhouse and Campbell disagree is that this difference should favour the free speech rights of Manning rather than Southern and Molyneux: “Yup, there’s a difference alright. Southern and Molyneux specialise in speech and actions aimed at inciting fear and hostility against vulnerable minorities. By contrast, Manning leaked 700,000 documents that exposed the means via which the US government secretly practiced violence against vulnerable minorities around the world.” This difference is also emphasised by Greg Presland blogging at The Standard, saying that Manning “is very different to Lauren Southern and Stefan Molyneux. She is not known for attacks on ethnic groups. She does not go around manufacturing dissent for Youtube clicks or engaging in hate speech. She has not taken parts in efforts to sabotage efforts to save refugees from drowning” – see: Let Chelsea Manning speak. Newstalk ZB’s Kate Hawkesby has an excellent response to all of this: “Isn’t this just both sides arguing against what doesn’t suit their own political leaning? I don’t see how you can cherry pick it. Otherwise it’s conditional free speech only, based on what we deem fair or not fair, based on our own political viewpoint – which suddenly doesn’t sound that free at all. You either have free speech or you don’t” – see: On Chelsea Manning NZ’s visit: You can’t cherry pick free speech. Finally, in terms of deciding free speech based on the relative merits of various speakers, some on the political left are still arguing that suppressing Southern and Molyneux was justified but banning Don Brash was not. Liam Hehir has responded with a very thoughtful point-by-point rebuttal of such arguments – see: Is Don Brash really different from those Canadians?]]>

Bryce Edwards’ Political Roundup: Is Working for Families contributing to poverty in New Zealand?

Bryce Edwards — Wed, 01 Aug 2018 10:46:27 +0000

Political Roundup: Is Working for Families contributing to poverty in New Zealand? – Analysis by DrBryce Edwards.

[caption id="attachment_13635" align="alignright" width="150"] Dr Bryce Edwards.[/caption] The people who are most concerned about poverty and inequality in this country are also usually highly supportive of Working for Families. But what if the Working for Families (WfF) scheme was actually part of the problem? What if WfF contributes to this poverty by reinforcing and entrenching the low-wage economy? This is the argument put forward in today’s New Zealand Herald by Matthew Hooton who says: “A major but overlooked cause of the low-wage economy driving today’s worsening industrial strife is Helen Clark’s flagship 2004 Working for Families policy” – see: ‘Communism by stealth’ is here. [caption id="attachment_4043" align="alignleft" width="200"] Sir Michael Cullen, finance minister in the Helen Clark-led Labour Government and architect of the Working for Families policy.[/caption] He explains how WfF acts as a subsidy to employers: “if there’s a job to do worth $60,000 a year, an employer can hire someone with two kids, pay them just $38,000 a year, and they’ll end up with almost the same pay in the hand. Union bosses rightly feared that it would be difficult to get workers with children to sign up for a pay campaign if it made little difference whether they earned $38,000 or $60,0000 a year. Worse, if government subsidises something, there will be more of if, in this case low-paid jobs.” Hooton also argues that the effect of WfF payments is to discourage employers from investing in improved productivity measures: “From an employers’ perspective, Working for Families screams out: ‘Don’t buy more plant and machinery or invest in on-job training; just hire a few more low-skilled labour units and get the government to pick up a big hunk of the tab.’ This means there is very little doubt Working for Families had led to lower productivity and before-tax wages across the economy than had Clark not launched it”. The WfF scheme is being discussed a lot more at the moment, partly because this month saw the Ardern Government inject $370 million more into it on an annual basis. Last week I wrote a column for Newsroom arguing that Working for Families is corporate welfare. In this column I drew a parallel between the scheme and the Accommodation Supplement: “This has parallels with other modern welfare initiatives – such as the accommodation supplement, which is a subsidy paid by the state to private landlords of those tenants on low incomes. The left blames such payments for contributing to the rapid increases in rentals, because it effectively allows landlords to increase rents for low-income tenants beyond what they can actually pay.” And I posed the question “what would happen if WfF didn’t exist?”: “One test of the impact of a policy is to look at what would happen if it wasn’t in place. Short term, obviously low-income families would be hit hard if WFF no longer existed. But, beyond that, it’s clear that wages for the lowest paid would have to rapidly increase, otherwise a huge proportion of the workforce would simply not be able to meet their basic costs. Just affording to get to work would be a problem, with higher housing costs pushing workers further and further away from their work locations. Rents at the lower end of the market would likely also fall rapidly, particularly in the bigger cities.” Former Labour Party activist Shane Te Pou recently wrote a Newsroom column that also explained how the scheme operated as a subsidy for business: “The policy basically worked as a subsidy of employers so they could pay lower wages than otherwise, including below a living wage, knowing that it would be topped up by the state” – see: Let’s keep welfare for the poor. In this column he explains how some unions have been unhappy about the scheme, and how WfF abatement rates punish the recipient. Economists also seem increasingly critical of its impact. For example, late last year, leading economist Ganesh Nana, who runs the BERL consulting group, gave a speech in which he said WfF “is essentially a subsidy to prop up businesses that adopt a low wage business model” – this is covered in Brian Rudman’s column, Policies for fiscal fairness only right. Nana called for businesses to break out of the low-wage “cul-de-sac” simply by paying much higher wages, and called for more debate on how to do this. So, how did this low-wage economy come about? This was all explained by Chris Trotter in an Otago Daily Times column last month – see: It’s time to stop subsidising New Zealand’s least efficient employers. According to this account, the neoliberal reforms of the 1990s instituted this low-wage economy by destroying the power of unions. This set New Zealand on a path which enabled inefficient businesses that are reliant on low-wage workers. Trotter says this approach is at variance with other countries that have maintained the labour market power of workers to bargain, while pushing inefficient employers out of business to allow productive high-wage ones to prosper. Trotter says that when the Clark Labour Government came to power they took the easy option, in not attempting to reverse this but simply paying out money to those negatively affected by it: “Regrettably, the Labour-led government of Helen Clark and Michael Cullen failed to reverse National’s low-wage strategy. Not only did they decline to restore the trade unions to anything like their former strength, but they augmented National’s low-wage strategy by introducing ‘Working For Familie’ which was nothing more nor less than a massive wage-subsidy to New Zealand’s worst employers”. And writing in the Herald, Josie Pagani has also reported on how this historic battle between “capital” and “labour” is being won by capital: “The Council of Trade Unions has pointed out that working people’s share of the economy has fallen from around half thirty years ago to barely 40 per cent today, a difference in wage packets of $20 billion a year, which is worth $6000 to $10,000 a year to an average family. That is wealth our economy produces each year, but is no longer going to working people. The Government can’t fix wages in its budget. Only significant changes in the way wages are agreed between working people and employers will increase returns to work compared to returns to capital” – see: Labour won’t have enough in the pie to satisfy all hungry kids. If this all seems too abstract or esoteric, then the must-read article on all of these issues and how they are playing out for those in lower-income jobs, is Joel Ineson’s When a $16k payrise only gives you $50 a week extra in hand after credits reduced. This provides the account of one worker who got a promotion at work, which had her “moving from a 30- to a 40-hour week and having her pay increased from $36,000 to $52,000”, yet because of WfF abatement rates, her actual weekly income went from $911 to only $962. She says that WfF has “the unintended result of trapping people in poverty”. The same article reports on the experiences of a Christchurch budget advisor, David Marra, who says “Whether it was intentional or whether it was an unintended consequence… Working for Families has worked as a mechanism to keep wages down because it removes motivation”. He says that WfF, together with labour laws that aren’t particularly worker-friendly, has contributed to a low-wage economy being entrenched in New Zealand. We need much more debate about WfF and the low-wage economic model. Helpfully, the Government has promised a review of WfF. However, as Simon Chapple reports, “We’re still waiting to be told when that review will begin, who will be conducting it and what its terms of reference will be. Nor do we know how it will tie in with the Tax Working Group (TWG), even though this will be critical if either is to fulfil its potential. One review disengaged from the other doesn’t make sense” – see: Time to tackle ‘incoherent’ tax policies. Finally, not everyone is so critical of WfF. And Susan St John of the University of Auckland has taken issue with my own column discussing the problems with the scheme – see: Working for Families perversely misunderstood.]]>

Bryce Edwards’ Political Roundup: Jacinda Ardern’s strike for gender equality

Bryce Edwards — Mon, 25 Jun 2018 04:54:56 +0000

Bryce Edwards’ Political Roundup: Jacinda Ardern’s strike for gender equality

[caption id="attachment_13635" align="alignright" width="150"] Dr Bryce Edwards.[/caption] In terms of the struggle for gender equality, the symbolism of the birth of Neve Te Aroha Ardern Gayford is impossible to ignore, and is rightly being celebrated around the world. Possibly the most important article about the significance of Ardern having a child while prime minister was published in the Hindustan Times – see: Jacinda Ardern to Benazir Bhutto: A tale of two pregnancies in power. As the title suggests, the article emphasises the difference between Ardern’s experience and that of Pakistan’s prime minister Benazir Bhutto, who gave birth to daughter Bakhtawar in 1990 while in office. [caption id="attachment_16598" align="aligncenter" width="640"] New Zealand Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern and partner Clarke Gayford announce the birth of their daughter Neve Te Aroha Ardern Gayford.[/caption] The contrast is stunning and worth quoting at length: “It was all a far cry from 1990, when Bhutto, the first woman to head a democratic government in a Muslim-majority nation, told almost no-one she was pregnant until Bakhtawar was born on January 25. ‘None of us in the cabinet virtually knew that this prime minister was about to deliver a baby,’ Javed Jabbar, a member of her cabinet, told the BBC recently. ‘And then lo-and-behold suddenly we learn that she has not only gone and delivered democracy she’s also delivered a baby.’ Opposition leader Syeda Abida Hussain had called Bhutto ‘greedy’ for wanting to have ‘motherhood, domesticity, glamour, and whole responsibility’ rather than make sacrifices for her country.” The article recounts how the Pakistani prime minister feared “she was in danger of being overthrown” and had to go “incognito to a Karachi hospital, underwent a Caesarean section, then returned to work.” According to Bhutto, “The next day I was back on the job, reading government papers and signing government files”. Bhutto was assassinated in 2007, but had she lived “Thursday would have been her birthday.” It would be a mistake to see the contrast between Bhutto and Ardern’s experience as simply being down to cultural and national differences between New Zealand and Pakistan. After all, western developed countries haven’t produced many female heads of government since 1990, and it’s remarkable that Ardern is only the first to give birth while in office. Ex-prime minister Helen Clark, writes in the British Guardian: “What lessons are there in this for our world? In my view, New Zealand is showing that no doors are closed to women, that having a baby while being prime minister can be managed, and that it’s acceptable for male partners to be full-time carers. This is very positive role modelling for the empowerment of women and for gender equality” – see: Jacinda Ardern shows that no doors are closed to women. On Ardern being unmarried, Clark says “Conventional wisdom may have said that this combination of factors would not have been helpful to a political career at the highest level. Fortunately, that has proved to be wrong. Ardern is a remarkable woman who crashes through glass ceilings with apparent ease.” Lots of commentaries on the birth have quite rightly been using words such as “momentous” and “groundbreaking”. For example, see Michelle Duff’s Jacinda Ardern had a baby, and we should all be proud. According to Duff, the importance of this historic event is that “It normalises powerful women and nurturing, caring men. It decimates outdated ideals of where a mother ‘should’ be – at home, with the children, while dad earns the money.” She says the country has mostly embraced the PM’s pregnancy: “New Zealand’s reaction to its Prime Minister’s pregnancy has basically been a collective ‘Sweet as’. As a country, we’re mostly cool with this, which suggests we’re well on our way to true equality.” National Party blogger David Farrar came up with one of the best lines on the significance of it all, saying, That’s one small step for a woman, one giant leap for womenkind. He stated: “There is of course nothing unusual at all about a woman giving birth, but for many it is quite monumental to see that being pregnant and giving birth is not incompatible with the highest office in the land. It is motivational and aspirational. Similarly, veteran political journalist John Armstrong reflected on the significance, declaring: “There are moments in a country’s history which transcend the ordinary; moments when the stars are in alignment with one another to produce the truly extraordinary. The birth of the Prime Minister’s first child has been such a moment” – see: There are moments in a country’s history which transcend the ordinary. Armstrong explains Ardern’s influence: “Ardern is the very embodiment of how a modern society seeks to unshackle women in order to harvest their potential contribution to the greater good to the maximum possible. It is impossible to measure Ardern’s influence as a role model. But it will already have been vast. Yet, she is incurably modest about it all. And she does not seek to exploit her success and the consequent high regard in which she is held to ram a message about gender equality down people’s throats.” Positivity about the birth, and about the breaking down of barriers, has been far from partisan according to Armstrong: “No matter one’s political leanings, it was near impossible not to succumb to the euphoria. The symptoms of Babymania were easy to spot.” Newspaper editorials also reflected on what Neve Gayford’s birth said about the modern liberal nature of New Zealand. For example, The Press said that “In an unmarried Prime Minister who gets to take maternity leave, we could see the progressive, tolerant, open-minded nation we like to think we are” – see: Jacinda’s baby represents hope, humility and the best of our values. Of course, some have questioned how progressive the nation really is and whether we should read too much into the birth. For example, Heather du Plessis-Allan reminded us that we didn’t actually vote a pregnant woman into office, and it was really down to Winston Peters giving the nod to Ardern instead of Bill English. She argues that, although the nation loves to bask in the reputation of being socially progressive, there’s plenty of evidence to the contrary – see: It’s not hip to be square. Coming from a completely different point of view, leftwing blogger Steven Cowan wonders if Labour Party types are simply trying to make political capital about how great it is for elite women in this country, while ignoring the struggles of most women. He says, “It is trickle down feminism, the kind of feminism that neoliberalism can embrace” – see: Jacinda Ardern and the feminism of the one percent. Ardern has been at pains to acknowledge that not all women or families have the privileges that will allow her to lead the nation while being a new mother. And David Farrar elaborates on this in his blog post: “Jacinda is fortunate that she has the support of not just her partner who will be primary caregiver, but also her parents. On top of that she has a staff of 25, VIP Transport, the DPS etc who will all be supporting her in her role as PM and mother, so she can do both. Her baby and partner/support persons will be transported around NZ with her. That is at it should be, but not every mother will have that support. So other parents shouldn’t feel pressured that they are lacking something if they are not back at work so soon.” And these issues are fuelling debate around the world. For instance, in the UK, Victoria Smith has written in the Independent newspaper that, as much as we should celebrate what New Zealand’s prime minister has achieved, there is a danger in assuming – or pressuring – every woman to be able to do the same thing when it’s simply not possible for them – see: Why you shouldn’t uphold Jacinda Ardern as proof that working mothers can ‘have it all’. Smith worries that other mothers who are not working will now be asked: “So what’s your excuse?”. Her main point is this: “I’m delighted at the example Ardern sets, and look forward to her continuing to demonstrate that pregnancy, motherhood and care work can and should be embedded in political life. The more we see mothers as full participants in public discourse and social change, the better. It’s important, though, to be clear about realities for other women in the here and now. Being shown what can be possible is not the same as being offered it. Pregnancy and motherhood should not exclude us from career success, but the truth is, they do.” Finally, Jenna Lynch looks back at some of the politicians who have led the way for Ardern – see Jenna Lynch’s Mothers in Parliament: The women who paved the way for Jacinda Ardern, and Anna Bracewell-Worrall investigates how Parliament is becoming more child-friendly – see What it’s like having a baby at Parliament.]]>

Step up efforts to support Indonesian women’s rights plea to Jakarta

Pacific Media Centre — Sun, 11 Mar 2018 23:00:09 +0000

By Sheany in Jakarta

The National Commission on Violence Against Women, or Komnas Perempuan, has called on the government to do more to protect women’s rights, particularly by enacting a long-overdue bill on the elimination of sexual violence.

The commission also said that current response to and handling of cases of violence against women in Indonesia was still too slow.

“There are still a number of issues that the government must pay attention to, in order to make sure that women’s rights in Indonesia are protected,” Komnas Perempuan chairwoman Azriana told reporters in Jakarta.

Komnas Perempuan’s annual report revealed that there were nearly 350,000 cases of violence against women in 2017 – a 25 percent increase from the previous year.

The report, which was published a day before International Women’s Day, also criticised the government for its slow prevention and handling mechanisms.

“We are not moving forward with our justice system … There are even no educational efforts to minimise the harmful effect of [cultural] norms that can lead to sexual violence,” Azriana said.

In Indonesia, cases of sexual violence are handled in accordance with the criminal code, the Law on the Elimination of Domestic Violence, the Law on Child Protection and the Law on Human Trafficking.

Legal vacuum
These laws, however, do not cover all types violence, leaving its victims in legal vacuum.

“Many women who are no longer children [in the eyes of the law] are also victims of sexual violence, but they are not protected. The types of violence also evolve,” Azriana said.

For example, femicide – the killing of a woman or girl on account of her gender – is not traditionally categorised as sexual violence.

“This is one of the reasons why the bill on the elimination of sexual violence must be passed quickly,” Azriana said, adding that Komnas Perempuan and several other organisations have suggested the inclusion of several other types of sexual violence, which are not yet recognised by the law, leaving many victims helpless.

Sheany is a journalist with the Jakarta Globe.

More Indonesian stories

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

]]>