ACT Law and Order Spokes-man implicitly condones rape in prisons.

"The fact is if you don't want to be assaulted - or worse - by a cellmate, avoid prison by not committing a crime." David Garret- ACT Law and Order spokesman, quoted in NZ Herald.

These are the comments made by the NZ Police Minister, Judith Collins, in regards to those arrested for looting in the after-math of the Christchurch earthquake (via NZ Herald):

Police Minister Judith Collins said the actions of looters was akin to "people who rob the dead".

She expected to see the judiciary throw the book at looters.

"I hope they go to jail for a long time - with a cellmate."

This is another quote (from a friend of mine's Facebook account) which I think could be used as a quite clear and appropriate response:
"WTF, National... is this what you meant by getting tough on law and order? By encouraging rape culture, and increasing standards of justice whenever you think the pub...lic are distressed enough to accept it?"

Yeah and rightly so: what the fuck National?! To think that our society is currently mis-guided by such levels of hypocrisy is, to say the least, quite sickening. But then I'm not that shocked nor surprised. Most of our attitudes towards violence are socially conditioned: we just assume that violent behaviour somehow becomes non-violent, or 'justifiably' not as violent in certain situations. For example, rape in prisons, i.e. "don't drop the soap", "she was drunk and can't remember plus he's a good guy so he wouldn't have forced her if she wasn't asking for it, a police man breaking the arm of an arrested homeless man etc. It is the double standard, not the people, that are protected in political and social rhetoric towards sexual violence: of course the majority of men would not accept rape, but then if she's a slut, or he's effeminate, married, in a long-term relations or crammed into a privatised prison, well...

Rather than focus on how rape is a form of violence that is perpetuated by the social norms of society and therefore can be stopped by un-learning rape culture, the NZ Minister of Police would rather see that these norms remain in place to punish those who deserve it... So the horrible message remains in society: rape, is permissible, it just has to be in the right context and then we refuse to call it rape. It becomes a 'joke', a lie or an accepted part of the 'justice system'.

As a personal response to those who condemn theives and looters: if one is stealing from a large corporation then whatever! As if a business such as New World ever existed to oversee the equal distribution of essential resources to humanity. If I had the opportunity I would loot the fuck out of the super market I worked in. Most of these corporations are entirely capitalist in structure (meaning: nearly all the profits are driven into the hands of the owner, whilst the workers are kept on strict hours and minimum wage). I would think that the amount of money, time, labour and respect stolen by the managers and owners of big businesses would be vastly more devastating than a day's ransacking by a few profiteering individuals.

Nou ja là alor nou vive.

Certains evenements sont passé cette semaine d'abord: le mardi soir j'ai réçu un appel d'une colleague avec qui je travaille ici en Guadeloupe. Elle m'appellait pour me dire qu'il y viens d'avait une énorme tremblement de terre dans l'ile du sud de la Nouvelle Zélande, en Christchurch. Tout de suite j'accrocha la téléphone et j'en suis sortie pour regarder les infos sur l'intrenet. J'étais boulerversé; j'ai vu un photo de la cathedrale écrasée et en panique, pleurant j'ai appellé ma grandmére pour savoir si mon frère était toujours vivant.
Je l'ai imaginé mort, disparu, coincé sous les milliers des tonnes de béton.
Puis j'ai pensé de ma tante, mon oncle, mes cousins, mes amies.  En fin tout le monde qui habite dans cette ville; les gens qui étaient au déjeuner, au boulot, à l'école, dans la rue quand ils ont eu le tremblement.
Heureusement, mon frère n'était pas en ville et ma tante et son époux sont survécu.
Le premier moment de panique est passé.
Sauf les tremblements continuent et le taux des morts augmentes.
La famille se reconnecte et on commence de nous rassurer "tous va bien? Tes amies? Tu a les nouvelles de ton pére?" et "Je t'aime, réponds moi quand tu récois cet message" et "Est-ce que tout le monde dans ta famille va bien".
Milliers personnes autours du monde s'asseoir devants des milliers d'ordinateurs pour éxprimé les memes sentiments: 'je pense de vous'.
Qu'est-ce qu'on peut faire? Christchurch, si familier avec ses rues bordé pars des arbres, maintenant détruite.

I just wanted to practice writing in French but because I only have a few minutes, I'll finish what I thought I might like to say last week in English. I'm thankful that all my family and friends have survived the earthquake unscathed: it has been a huge shock and for many people who have loved ones on the list of the 50 people still unaccounted for the worst may be yet to come.

I dedicate this post to the dead of Christchurch, my Aunty and Uncle, my cousins and also to my memories of the place: the people I've met there, the bars I've drunkenly rampaged through with cries of 'QUEERS RULE!', good times at my Aunty's house with family as I passed through. For despite it's homophobes, bad weather, and conformist mainstream attitudes to white society: it is a city where I've grown, explored and been loved. 

No need to twist my nipples twice...

Just thought I would use my lunch break to promote a few summer events that I definitely plan on dragging my conformified queer butt to (and let off some drag queen steam!):

Queer Riot is taking place in Guelph, which is somewhere in Ontario, Canada. For more information and links check out: fierce and fabulous krew, http://queers519.wordpress.com/events/queeriot-convergence-june-10th-13th/
Also (I should have done these chronologically but ya what), MondoHomo Dirty South in Atlanta, Georgia, USA. According to the QZAP (Queer Zine Archive Project) it will be going from Wednesday 25th to Monday 30th of May 2011, http://www.mondohomo.com/

A short manifesto against: being "responsible".

This is something I wrote a month or two ago for a zine that has not been finished...

A short manifesto against: acting “responsible”.

Where ever social norms and attitudes discriminate and condone violence towards a certain stereotyped individual, class or group of people the notion that those who suffer from this oppression are also somehow responsible for it is deeply entrenched in the mind set of victims and oppressors. For example, I was talking to a group of strangers I had just met in a park in Ottawa, when one of the guys leaned towards me and nodding in the direction of a nearby womyn he winked and then remarked “she ought to be careful wearing those shorts, a guy can see everything”. His whole attitude told me that he thought it was ok to stare at, objectify and then suggest that by wearing ‘hot pants’ if she was sexually assaulted it would be her own fault. “What? People should be able to wear what they want. I don’t see anything wrong with wearing shorts on a sunny day”. I quickly moved away to the other side of the park to do hand stands in peace. 

When discrimination towards a certain type of person or social group is prescribed as a universal norm, the process of internalizing this oppression becomes hard to resist and therefore even more dangerous for the persecuted individual or group. Openly expressing oneself or one’s desires in a society that perceives such forms of expression as subversive, ‘unnatural’ or immoral, become acts that an individual can be ‘justifiably’ punished for as they contradict the conformist psychology of the dominant culture.

Since I arrived in Guadeloupe I’ve met and come out to a number of people, nearly all of them have at one point remarked that ‘I need to be careful’, and that if I talk about my sexuality or relationships in any other situation that isn’t restricted to my home environment, basically my life will be a living nightmare and it will be my own big-mouthed fault. There are several ideas that uphold this form of reasoning, some of them come from genuine concern and a mutated sense of compassion; however, most are derived from a culture of homophobic sexism that regulates sexuality and experience into public/private spheres and generalizes gender into the immutable distinction between ‘man’ and ‘woman’.

A society that perceives the status-quo as normal and therefore permanent, not only condones discrimination but forces oppressed individuals to monitor their own behavior and assume responsibility for the aggressive behavior of others.

 Because we all live in societies where the notion of identity has become fixed to stereotyped ideas of human behavior; good girls shouldn’t like sex, gays are ok as long as they don’t want to have children, heterosexual men don’t hold hands with other men; our lives and experiences become constricted to a generalized pattern that accepts diversity on a certain level but continues to impose a high price on individuals who express themselves openly.

I had lunch with a colleague the other day who told me she accepts gays (“not bisexuals”) but doesn’t like to see marginalized sexualities rubbed in the face of a heterosexist society: “everyone is protected by the law” but those who have street parades, wear make-up or kiss their lovers at the bus stop (daring to be visible) should accept the fact that they will be in danger. My colleague also told me that males would never truly understand love and therefore male-male relationships are just an extravagance that should remain behind closed doors. As I was tired of being condescended to and about to leave, I stopped myself from asking how she couldn’t see the irony in being against the gendered stereotyping of women and colonial racism that upheld slavery; but yet support the notion that homosexuality is limited to a certain lifestyle choice and heterosexist privilege does not exist.

Heterosexism enforces the idea that heterosexual (preferably monogamous) relationships should be upheld as the ideal form of human sexual expression. Privileged heterocentric liberalism that ennobles itself by ‘tolerating’ certain identities, leaves the conditions of homophobia and gender discrimination firmly in place; violence is supported by a diffuse process blaming the individual for being too visible as they are seen to be ‘pushing’ their identity onto others. In all situations where there is a dominant normative culture the majority become blind to their acts of oppression as they do not see the inequalities that exist between themselves and the identities they marginalize. In France the banning of head-scarves for Muslim girls who attend public schools was argued from the basis of religious equality and preserving the ‘secular’ education system. However, France like most Western European cultures has inherited a normative Christian culture: the banning of head-scarves can be seen as the imposition of these normative cultural values, those who do not conform must be made invisible for the sake of the majority’s social privilege.

Heterosexism pushes invisibility onto queer youth; in a homophobic society they no longer exist and ‘gay’ becomes an identity reserved for those who survive but lead their lives quietly as good ‘discrete’ law abiding people. When I hear someone say “Oh I have gay friends, it’s ok” and then turn around and suggest that if a teacher wants to keep her job she should be quiet about her lesbian lover, I want to say: “FUCK you and your well balanced bigotry. It’s not our responsibility to protect society from its own insecurities; we have the right to live our lives as freely as possible and as oppressed individuals of sexist homophobic violence, we understand better than anyone the risks we take just being ourselves. I certainly do not need your self-righteous liberal acceptance to validate my existence.”

People who want to support those who might experience gendered homophobic violence should not patronize them by saying they should or should have modified their behavior so as to not attract aggressive attention. This attitude only validates the actions of the aggressor and the system from which they learnt to fear, hate or want to control others.

whilst living in this foreign country I will refuse to let that fear and hatred become my responsibility: keeping safe is completely different to burdening myself with societal shame towards sexuality.

Here’s to not giving a damn!

The Anarcho-Socialist revolution must be vegetarian!

Death to the capitalists and power to the proletariat! Upton Sinclair's 'The Jungle' is a grim portrayal of the working conditions in the slaughter houses of 19th century Chicago as well as a damning critique of the capitalist society that created them.

Through the struggles of Jurgis Rudkus, we see society as a system of inequality driven by ruthless politics of greed and 'efficiency' towards tragic and destructive ends: the newly arrived immigrants are robbed, lied to, driven into wage-slavery and left fighting for their lives amidst snow storms and lay-offs. The sheer horror of this tale should force the reader to conclude that: firstly, eating meat is FUCKED up and secondly capitalist societies are essentially based upon hierarchies driven by insecurity, deprivation and fear.

I've come to realise in the last few months that being a vegetarian/vegan in an animal-'hating' society is actually quite a radical and often isolating act. In the fight for an equal and just world, the ambivalent and hypocritical treatment of sentient beings (human or non-human alike) is a primary psychological motivator behind the perpetuation of systemic and individual acts of violence. Many social norms are constructed on the basis of hypocrisy and double-standards: we shouldn't eat dogs or destroy the rainforest but its completely fine to buy plastic-wrapped meat products imported from the other side of the world. Added to the gross waste of resources that comes from raising meat, the workers who raised the animals, slaughtered them, packaged them and then delivered their decaying corpses to be stocked on waiting shelves were all paid a small fraction of the profit from the animals' lives whilst putting their own health at risk.

But enough ranting, and some facts:
- In 1997, 4 companies processed 80% of all beef and steers in the US
- The repeated-injury rate (injuries that develop over time) for US workers in the meat processing industry is 27 times higher than the national average.
-Calories of fossil fuel expended to get 1 calorie of protein from beef: 78
-To get 1 calorie of protein from soybeans: 2
-Number of people worldwide who will die as a result of malnutrition this year: 20 million
-Number of people who could be adequately fed using land freed if Americans reduced their intake of meat by 10%: 100 million (I copied the last four from the Consumericide blog, but they are powerful little pieces of information, even if statistics only highlight so much)
I grew up in a small rural town where the major industry was meat processing for the farms in our region. Nearly every other industry, small business and other service (like the hospital laboratory where my mother worked) that supplied the wants and needs of the local people was directly or indirectly dependent on the slaughterhouse/freezing work for survival. If the freezing works closed then most of the population would have to go elsewhere to look for work. A society that allows its economy to be limited to one resource that is in the hands of a few corporates trying to maximise their own profits is inevitably exposed to uncertainty about the future.
Where there is insecurity and lack of control there is also fear. People will not risk their daily bread to criticise the industry that keeps them trapped but tenuously alive in their social prisons. What we are left with is corporate consolidation of power and money at the expense of animal and worker rights and less means to strike back or convince the slaughterer that the cow's life is also of intrinsic value and should not be given up for capitalist profit.
Capitalist, capitalist, capitalist!!! I just had to get it out.
The Jungle is a powerful book as it touches on many political and social issues that remain extremely (painfully) relevant today: sexism, racism, environmental destruction, sex worker discrimination, sex negativity.
Aside from Sinclair's stirring cry for the Socialist revolution, I would also encourage a piercing scream that might hopefully shatter some of the false ideas people sustain towards meat eating and the values they support that allow the whole sickening process to continue.