When survivors speak out

Content note: discussion of sexual violence and the experience of survivors.

Yesterday I did a round-up of the women’s voices on Twitter talking about recent events in Parliament, where women MPs from the Opposition, many of them survivors of sexual violence, were thrown out of the House for taking exception to John Key saying they supported rapists.

There have been other great posts in the last day or so expanding on what this means.

Claudia has written at Public Address about her own experience.

I want to believe in trigger warnings, because I want to believe there’s something people can do to make me feel safer in a world that has proven, twice, that I am not safe.

This week, the highest body in New Zealand has proven to me that that wish is pointless. That I can’t be safe. Because the people who are meant to protect me care more about scoring political points than they do about the people who need them.

Hadassah Grace has put together a brief history of John Key and his Government’s record on sexual violence. She has a tremendous list of sources at the end.

The National budget includes an increase in funding to sexual violence services of $10.4 million over the next two years. Although this is much needed, it comes five years after the Taskforce for Action on Sexual Violence first recommended a funding increase. Five years of drastic funding cuts in which many providers were forced to lay off staff, reduce services or close down altogether.

This $10.4 million is less than the yearly budget for ministerial travel.

This was written last year on the Wellington Rape Crisis blog, but it’s just as relevant today:

With media and hearings coming up, something we are often asked is do we have someone who is prepared to speak to a camera about their abuse. This has led us to consider again how do we include the voices of survivors when most wish to remain anonymous? Something that both the sexual and domestic violence sector finds is that when survivors have done some of their healing they want to contribute to public knowledge about this issue. However, our ‘human interest’ angle in the media requires names and photos. How do we hold the tension of public wanting faces to go with stories, and a survivor’s right and need to have control over information people have about them?

Deborah Russell calls it an object lesson in silencing women.

Accusing the Labour Party of backing rapists is the latest tactic that the Speaker of the House is using to protect a Prime Minister who simply won’t fight for New Zealanders, who wants to pick and choose who he will act for as New Zealanders, and who is determined to make sure that the only New Zealanders he will look out for are the people who are convenient for him.

There’s also excellent video from Story of the women MPs who walked out yesterday talking about their experiences. Trigger warnings apply. Other good coverage came from The Guardian.

Please go read these posts in full. I know there’s a concern about “buying” Key’s line – about getting distracted by are-they-rapists-or-not or are-we-defending-rapists-or-not – but I reject it. I said on Twitter last night:

We can do more than one thing at a time (if you watch the article on Story, you’ll see they do!). And if we can improve the situation for Kiwis in Australian detention centres and demand a better national conversation about sexual violence, we’ll have done some real good in the world.

NZQT or Kafka?

A now-familiar scene in our House of Representatives:

OPPOSITION MP
Does the Minister agree with the concerns raised by [group] about [issue]?

GOVERNMENT MINISTER
The member’s facts are incorrect.

OPPOSITION MP
Point of order, Mr Speaker. I asked the Minister if they agreed with the concerns of [group]. They did not answer the question.

DAVID CARTER
The Minister addressed the question, although I accept not to the member’s liking. Supplementary?

OPPOSITION MP
Is the Minister concerned about the fact that this issue is being criticised by groups including [group]?

GOVERNMENT MINISTER
I say again to the member that their facts are incorrect.

OPPOSITION MP
Point of order, Mr Speaker. I seek leave to table evidence of [group’s] concerns about [issue].

DAVID CARTER
Is it a publicly available document?

OPPOSITION MP
It’s a media release/report/publication by [group] outlining their concerns.

DAVID CARTER
If it’s publicly available then it cannot be tabled. Question number six?

It’s a quaint thing about our Parliament. You absolutely must not ever under any circumstances call another member a liar. But when Opposition MPs try to question Government Ministers (which is kind of their entire job) about objective, provable facts (like “did X say Y” or “did figure A increase B%”), those Ministers are quite free to say “no you’re wrong” even when there is clear information in the public arena – and the Opposition cannot call them out on it. Because then this happens:

OPPOSITION MP
Point of order, Mr Speaker. The Minister has said [statement] is incorrect. This is simply not true. It’s right here in this document.

DAVID CARTER
Is it a publicly available document?

OPPOSITION MP
Yes, but the Minister just said it wasn’t true! But it’s right here! In black and white!

DAVID CARTER
If it’s publicly available then it cannot be tabled. Question number six?

You can tell when the charade becomes too much for some MPs, because that’s when they get themselves thrown out.

OPPOSITION MP
Point of order, Mr Speaker.

DAVID CARTER
Is it a new point of order?

OPPOSITION MP
Pretty much. No. I seek clarification on your ruling.

DAVID CARTER 
My ruling was very clear. The Minister addressed the member’s question, though I acknowledge not to the member’s satisfaction.

OPPOSITION MP
Mr Speaker, with respect, I think your ruling threatens to throw the House into disorder. It simply cannot be reconciled that the Minister is telling the truth while calling the member a liar about a statement of fact.

DAVID CARTER
No. The member knows he cannot make that insinuation.

OPPOSITION MP
It’s the exact same bloody insinuation the Minister made by saying my assumptions were incorrect when they bloody well know it’s not because it’s right here in black and white!

DAVID CARTER
The Minister addressed the question, although I acknowledge not to the member’s liking. If the member wishes to challenge the Minister’s answer, that is what further supplementary questions are for, even though the member cannot disprove the Minister’s answer by tabling documents which establish they’re lying because the documents are publicly available and cannot be tabled. Question six?

OPPOSITION MP
Are you fucking kidding me? How the hell is the House meant to keep order when you won’t even let us do our goddamn jobs?

DAVID CARTER
The member will leave the chamber.

OPPOSITION MP
*explodes*

I almost expect one day for David Carter to be exposed as a robot, a la the Roger Goodell-bot depicted in South Park: