Tag: bullying

Posted on

Anne Tolley’s next abhorrent idea: forced sterilization of poor people

It’s going to be incredibly difficult not to Godwin the hell out of this one, people.

Appearing on TVOne’s Q+A programme this morning, Social Development minister Anne Tolley would not rule out more actively trying to limit or prevent births to families which have come to the attention of authorities.

…

“Well, we’ll wait and see what the panel report. I expect that they’ll be saying, ‘We should get much, much faster contraceptive advice in. We should be offering, you know, tubal ligations, all sorts of things and counselling those families’,” she said.

Tubal ligation is not a form of contraception. Tubal ligation is a form of sterilization.

And sure, anybody who wants to make an informed decision to get a tubal ligation should be able to. I know plenty of childfree people who’d run at the chance, after many years of “you’ll want kids when you’re older” concern-trolling from the medical establishment.

But let’s not confuse Anne Tolley’s suggestion with any kind of progressive reproductive healthcare policy. This is simply National applying further bullying to “undesirable” people not to have children. And there are many words for that, and most of them are rightly associated with, shall we say, certain fascist societies.

Let’s remember how this government generally acts towards people on benefits, and ask ourselves if we really believe the “offer” of sterilization or counselling or long-term contraception is actually being made in an open-minded, compassionate way.

Let’s remember that their plan of offer free long-term contraception – which was an expensive failure – wasn’t just targeted at beneficiaries, but at their teenage daughters – and what kind of message that sends about “those kind of people”.

I support reproductive choice. I support the state making options available to people, on their own terms, to control when they have kids and how many kids they have. It’d be great to see a government which actually cared enough about stopping unwanted pregnancies to extend free doctor’s appointments for sexual health to more young people, or ensuring quicker access to abortion services.

But that’s not what we’re getting. We’re getting another dystopic, daddy-state interference in the lives of people who are already pushed to the absolute limits. We’re applying the power of government to threaten people who have incredibly little with even less if they dare to have a family the powers-that-be don’t approve of.

It’s grotesque. And worse, it’s probably not even sincere. Anne Tolley knows this won’t solve any of the problems she says exist in our social welfare system. But it will get great headlines about cracking down on those filthy bludging breeders-for-a-business. And even people on the left won’t be rushing to call it out for what it is: a repugnant attack on basic human rights.

~

Some people want to see the good in everything and think we should focus on the important stuff – better access to contraception – instead of calling out Tolley’s horrific agenda. Unfortunately, the coverage this morning makes it all pretty clear:

The Minister for Social Development wants to find a way of stopping the most at-risk beneficiaries from having more children.

…

Anne Tolley admitted it was a tricky subject, but said something had to be done about the women who have multiple children taken into care.

Emphasis mine; coercive restrictions on poor women’s reproduction all hers.

Posted on

Prolife NZ: importing premium US intimidation tactics

(Content note: antichoice violence and intimidation tactics)

A “pro-life” group in NZ has decided to post an article at their website screaming blue (baby-)murder about the latest smear campaign against Planned Parenthood in the United States.

And wouldn’t you know it, there I am! Standing on the right with some friends from ALRANZ and the thoroughly inspirational Cecile Richards. It was taken at a Family Planning conference in 2014, where according to Prolife NZ, Ms Richards

[was] flown [in] … to train up New Zealand abortion activists on rolling out their US style abortion strategy to New Zealand

… or, if you’re not a religious extremist who hates women, “gave a keynote speech at a conference.”

The actual “accusations” against Planned Parenthood this time are the usual laughable slurs, presented in a heavily-edited, one might almost say dishonestly-presented video. Trying to make a connection to New Zealand Family Planning just because they got the head of PP to talk to their conference one time is the same (poor) calibre of argument.

But here’s the irony. As Prolife NZ try to smear ALRANZ and Family Planning over their “close ties” to the USA prochoice movement, they’re importing the dishonest, abusive tactics of the USA antichoice movement wholesale. From the absolute beat-up of a story which has zero credibility and even less relevance to the state of abortion in New Zealand, right down to the intimidation tactics: posting pictures of people without their consent and deliberately naming them in order to direct hostility at them.

If you think that’s an overreaction, consider this comment left on Prolife NZ’s Facebook – under a photo of me and my friends.

prolife threat edit 230715

That’s right. Go to a conference to hear a woman talk, get people on Facebook wishing violent dismemberment on you.

This kind of thing is usually met with defensive cries of “oh but we don’t support violence” (though they’ve left the comment up.) It’s nonsense. When Dr George Tiller was murdered in 2009, prominent antichoicers even tried to deny that his assassin, Scott Roeder, was part of their movement – despite a 20-year history of antichoice activism.

But there is simply no other plausible explanation for Prolife NZ’s post than intimidation. There is no significant connection between Planned Parenthood’s services and ALRANZ. There is no need to reproduce a year-old photo, and no need to name three of the women in it, except to make them targets for hatred (and hopefully not worse).

The New Zealand antichoice movement has form for this; a few years back there was even a wiki maintained of prochoice activists, with photos and records of events they’d attended.

It’s bullying. It’s intimidation. And it perfectly illustrates the real goal of the “pro-life” movement: to keep women in their place.

Here’s what I have to say to that.

underwood go fuck yourself

Posted on

Modern fat-shaming: how do I smugly put down my fat friends?

A de-coding of this NZ Herald “advice” column:

Is it ever okay to step in and tell a friend they are too fat? – Weight Watcher, Auckland.

“Too fat” is obviously a turn of phrase you should never use when talking to one of your friends (or even behind their backs when you’re trying to impress other people with how health-conscious you are) because it’s sounds too judgey – and the real question is how you can judge your friends without them being able to call you out on it.

After all, fat-shaming isn’t helpful – it sounds too much like actual bullying, and reveals you’re the kind of person who judges other based on their physical appearance.

But fat people are disgusting and unhealthy. Science says so, and by “science” we mean hilariously inaccurate measurements like BMI and studies funded by the weightloss industry.

A study by University College London found that telling someone they’re fat makes them eat more, not less (because as a fat person they’re obviously already stuffing their faces with baby-flavoured donuts at every opportunity), so the trick is to make it obvious that you think they’re fat and disgusting without actually saying so. Start a conversation by really subtly looking them up and down with a sneer on your face and then brag about how much weight you’ve lost on your diet.

Don’t make the conversation about cosmetic appearance (that would make it too obvious that you’re fat-shaming them.) Instead, talk about a range of diseases and medical conditions which are predominantly linked to genetic factors but are stereotyped as being “diseases of obesity”, and brag about how much better you/your friend/your coworker felt after their diet.

Basically, tell your friend that even though you’re not judging them on their cosmetic appearance, you are able to categorically diagnose them with multiple invisible illnesses, based on their cosmetic appearance.

Then, ask your friend if they have concerns about their health, because they clearly should, because they’re fat. Even though you would never say that you’re only asking the question because of their size, they’ll work it out pretty quickly when you never ask any of your thin friends the same question. If they say yes, tell them to go to a doctor who can tell them to diet while ignoring their psychological state or bothering to figure out if they’re actually sick. If they say no, don’t be brutal, but do remind them once again that you can tell they’re unhealthy because they’re fat. Again, I stress the need for empathy here, and by empathy I mean “pretending you’re not fat-shaming them.”

You might be met with hostility, because fat people are too stupid to know they’re fat, and they get bizarrely irritated at other people making assumptions about their health and fitness based on their size. You might get the opportunity to have the conversation several times because they’ve been socialized to accept your obnoxious fat-shaming. But if you persevere, you might actually force your friend into disordered eating and self-destructive behaviour which temporarilys make them thin, which means they’re healthy. Isn’t that what friends are for?

Related Reading:

Posted on

Who said it? Shane Reti vs. Aaron Gilmore

There’s an odd trend among National Party backbenchers. Slipping in on the list, or shunted into safe seats by a party at the height of its power, they’ve bought all the spin and never been told the cautionary tale of the dark days of 20.93%. And then, when someone questions their divine right to do whatever they want, they completely lose the plot.

Aaron Gilmore was elected in 2008 off the list and had to resign in 2013 after being a right prat to a waiter. He was succeeded by Claudette Hauiti who lasted just over a year before she had to resign for misspending parliamentary money on a holiday (and kept spending up large even after she announced her retirement from politics.)

Later, emails from Gilmore’s time at MoBIE emerged, showing him to be a bit of a workplace bully, puffed up by his imminent return to Parliament.

Now, Shane Reti, elected in 2014 in the safe seat of Whangarei, has been accused of threatening a local lobby group to stay quiet while the Northland by-election hangs by a thread.

It’s appalling behaviour, but is it surprising? After all, can you pick which of the quotes below were said by Shane Reti, and which by Aaron Gilmore?

1. “I only tell you this as I am sure this thing will come back to haunt you.”

2. “What I tried to say to you, before another email arrived, hold your breath.”

3. “You may want to consider your penchant firing off messages to all in sundry trying to undermine people simply because you don’t agree with them”

4. “The only thing I would say to you is … the more threatening the emails are, almost certainly my approach will come to an end, I guarantee it”

5: “Its not your questioning of analysis … its some of your emotive emails which I have seen this past week or so you have sent to others”

6: “If the next two and half weeks is so critically important to have that tone then go ahead and do it. No problem. And we will see what the consequence is.”

ANSWER: The odd numbers are Gilmore; the even numbers are Reti. The over-wordy, very concerned, maybe you should watch what you say tone is identical, isn’t it?

Sources: Shane Reti’s phone conversation audio at Stuff; Aaron Gilmore’s emails here.

Posted on

Creepy behaviour from David Farrar

It wasn’t at all surprising to me that David Farrar is scathing of students who have to seek hardship grants to pay their bills, categorising them as bludgers who “say yes to free cash“. Nor that he believes that every journalist who reports on the cost of living should demand “a detailed break down of income and expenditure, so readers can judge for themselves the situation”.

(David Farrar isn’t a journalist, so he’s not bound by such ethical considerations – or he might have considered linking to the actual UCOL policy on hardship grants which makes it clear it is definitely not just “free cash”.)

It’s a typical rightwing attitude which reinforces the idea that lesser people – beneficiaries, students, parents – just aren’t allowed to have nice things. It assumes that survival is good enough – not being able to live a life with some dignity, nor understanding that human beings aren’t just automatons who you input fuel into to extract productivity.

What’s disturbing is this bit, where after completely misrepresenting an interviewees’ statements (she commented that she was speaking generally, not of her own situation; Farrar reforms this into wholesale journalistic inaccuracy):

I’ve had a look through the Facebook pages of Lauren and Karn. They both seem very cool friendly people, and in no way are they political activists for a cause. They seem very typical students. I would note however that contrary to the perception in the article of starving students (and I am not blaming them, but the story) they seem to have pretty good social lives judging by the photos, and references to Big Day Out etc.

We’ve seen this before, of course, with Paula Bennett unashamedly releasing the personal details of beneficiaries who criticised her ill-judged, mean-spirited decision to cut the Training Incentive Allowance. And there have been many similar cases of people having sick leave cut because they looked happy in a couple of Facebook photos.

It’s a really nasty intimidation tactic – silencing people by threatening to embarrass them publicly, undermining their experiences by attacking their credibility. If you’re not dressed like a Dickensian urchin covered in chimney-dust, the argument goes, you can’t really be struggling to pay bills week-to-week.

David Farrar is saying no more and no less than this: if you do have political leanings, your argument would be invalid (he pretends to be generous in pointing out that they don’t); if you do have a social life, you must be lying when you say some students are trying to get by with $2 a day to spend on food sometimes. And don’t even think about attending the Big Day Out in February if you might be short of cash in September or you deserve to go hungry, you horrid, reprehensible bludgers.

It’s par for the course for our government and its bloggers, and it needs to be named for what it is: unacceptable bullying.

Edited to add: a few responses on Twitter which highlight that this is repeated behaviour from Farrar, and why it’s irresponsible for him to expose young women to the lecherous creepiness of his commentariat (which he keeps promising to clean up).