Monday, 12 July 2010

Hiding Haden’s comments doesn’t change the truth [updated]

So I’m curious now. What was it that Andy Haden actually said?

_Quote_thumb[2]I'm of the mind that if women head out on the town with the purpose of being shagged by a sportsman, then they must bear some responsibility for their actions.
    Treating all women as victims infantilises them. If women want sexual freedom, they must accept sexual responsibility.
    Alcoholic comas, unwanted sex and remorse are occupational hazards for trollops on the prowl.”

Oops.  No, that was Kerre Woodham.

_Quote_thumb[2]There are people who are really just there for a screw. They are the team bike. And that's really distasteful to me ... The players are just going to laugh at them the next day. They find them a nuisance. I think those people are in it not because they enjoy the game, but because they want to have sex with a football player."

Oops, no that wasn’t him either. That was a 22-year-old who “confesses to being a former football groupie but believes she has now moved into the inner sanctum of a Sydney-based club. ‘It's not about me wanting to sleep with them and kiss them any more, it's about me enjoying their company,’ says Jane (not her real name).” So what did Haden say that was so out of turn? Here it is—no fooling this time:

_Quote_thumb[2]There's a bloke called Hugh Grant. He got into a bit of trouble like this and I think if the cheque bounces sometimes, they only realise that they've been raped, you know, sometimes," he said. Haden said there were two sides to every story. ‘It's an equal society now, some of these girls are targeting rugby players and they do so at their peril today, I think.’"

So, um, anyone care to tell me which part of that is incorrect? Anyone? So if it’s not wrong, then what was so wrong in saying it?  Nothing, says Lindsay Perigo, who reckons Haden is one of the few honest and courageous men in NZ public life:

_Quote_thumb[2] Andy Haden's resignation as Ambassador for the Government's Rugby World Cup programme marks him out yet again as one of the very, very small number of people in New Zealand public life with integrity and courage…
     Mr. Haden is a hero. Lesser men—most men in New Zealand—would have gone on television, wept, apologised, begged forgiveness from all the people he supposedly had let down—and pleaded to be given another chance. Mr. Haden instead removed himself with great dignity from a situation where he would continue to be harassed by quacking dimwits masquerading as television reporters for the sin of speaking his mind, and reprimanded by moral pygmies like Murray McCully for the same reason.
     ”It is to be hoped Sky TV will not now lose its nerve as it did over the Murray Mexted affair, and will keep Andy Haden on as a fearless and robust commentator in a nation sadly lacking in fearless commentary in all fields.”

Not much to disagree with there, is there.  So does sacking him change the truth?  Or simply diminish debate.

13 comments:

  1. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Welcome to the age of newspeak and thought crimes.

    Jeepers Murray McCully has the spine of a jellyfish - he should have backed Andy Haden up, instead he pandered to the noisy empty vessels and their predictable wails when confronted with the truth.

    ReplyDelete
  3. So, um, anyone care to tell me which part of that is incorrect? Anyone?

    How about its opening premise? Hugh Grant paid for a blow job-- there was never any contention of rape at all.

    Or the contention that women who court sportsmen do so "at their peril". Is he really saying that sportsmen are uncontrollable rapists -- and that's women's fault? It appears so.

    The comments were made in the context of a claim that Robin Brooke had sex with an unconscious teenager. If that's true, that is rape. It's a criminal offence. I'm interested to know when you decided victims were to blame for serious criminal assaults.

    And this all followed the "darkies" rubbish -- in which Haden made claims that were not only offensive and damaging to the game and the tournament (which we're underwriting as taxpayers), but demonstrably false to anyone who can count.

    Even if you believe Haden's grandstanding bullshit, it was so far out of keeping with the role he accepted that -- were it not for the meddlings of a minister -- he'd be out on his ear. A private organisation would simply have got rid of him, given the contempt he'd demonstrated for the role.

    You argument may lack the lavish idiocy of Perigo's offering, but it's still nonsense.

    ReplyDelete
  4. It was a comment on a TV show, Russell, not a Papal Bull.

    Whatever happened to robust debate about things? Must we all agree on everything--and close down debate on all those who don't agree with us?

    ReplyDelete
  5. Russel has covered most of what I wanted to say, but I'll also add that responsibility is indeed a two way street, and if there's a possibility that the woman you're about to fuck might turn around and accuse you of rape, you probably shouldn't go through with it.

    A guy who has casual sex with a woman may not deserve to get a rape charge, but a woman who gets too drunk to say no doesn't deserve to get raped either. It's the nature of the beast that there are probably always going to be people out there who will take advantage of a situation.

    The dominant attitudes that exist about sex and each genders responsibility with regards to it are still incredibly backwards and even misogynistic. Woman are expected to hold most of the responsibility while men who have a cavalier attitude are often congratulated for being "players".

    I only really have one rule when it comes to sex, actually it's the same rule I have for everything - always consider the consequences. It's a rule I'd like to see promoted more, for both men and woman.

    ReplyDelete
  6. It was a comment on a TV show, Russell, not a Papal Bull.

    It was a comment by someone who'd accepted a role that quite clearly required him to do credit to the game. And it was the second time he'd placed himself above the role.

    I thought Haden's silliest comment was to complain about the media picking up on something __he'd said in the media__.

    Whatever happened to robust debate about things? Must we all agree on everything--and close down debate on all those who don't agree with us?

    Uh, what? Your exact words were:

    "So, um, anyone care to tell me which part of that is incorrect? Anyone?"

    I accepted your invitation to do so. Robustly.

    I really can't see how that's "closing down debate".

    ReplyDelete
  7. @Russell:

    "I accepted your invitation to do so. Robustly."

    Indeed you did. But that's not to say we all need to agree with it-or to avoid noticing that some of these stalkers (in the Robin Brooke case at least) seem more than a little interested in the money, and in any case that women who stalk sportsmen might need to accept some responsibility for what happens.

    ">I really can't see how that's 'closing down debate.'"

    That isn't. But how would you describe calling for his head?

    ReplyDelete
  8. "they only realise that they've been raped, you know, sometimes."
    I think is the offensive remark, it makes a very sweeping generalisaition, which could be seen to be suggesting that many women who have been raped, are just making it up.

    Sure false allegations do occur. However, the police investigate all alleged rapes, and those that they do not find evidence of being false are rightly assumed to be genuine.

    Haden could be seen to be casting doubt on those women who are assumed to be genuine, despite obviously having no evidence that they are not. This is offensive.



    "some of these girls are targeting rugby players and they do so at their peril today, I think."

    What he means by this is unclear

    Is the preril rape/assult?
    If so, does he mean that it is their fault(the implication that was seen as offensive/wrong)?
    or does he mean that rugby players are dangerous (but wasnt he just defending them, so surely he doesnt mean that).
    or is he just saying that the perils are STI, pregnancy, humiliation, injury durin intoxicaton etc.(but it was a case of alleged assult that they were discussing, so that it isn't clear that this is what he means)

    I dont know what he meant, but his lack of clarity meant that some people took it the wrong way. He did later clarify this part of his statemet, but the issure of what was condemned was what was said initially.

    ReplyDelete
  9. in any case that women who stalk sportsmen might need to accept some responsibility for what happens.

    Is that what you really meant to say? That women should take responsibility for someone having non-consensual sex with them?

    No one ever deserves to be raped, no matter what you might think of their actions prior to the act of rape. Rape is non-consensual sex and thus the rapist holds full responsibility for that action. Not the victim.

    ReplyDelete
  10. "Is that what you really meant to say? That women should take responsibility for someone having non-consensual sex with them?"

    But this woman was perfectly happy to have consenting sex with Brooke beforehand,indeed she initiated it by stalking him to bed him.And its still very grey regarding just when she passed out in relation to when she and Brooke were at it.If say your sexual partner were to simply doze off in the middle of the act with you and you keep "pumping away is that rape?

    How do we know that they had not already begun consentually screwing (again) when she passed out? And what is Brooke supposed to do? Stop?....or carry on as consent has not been withdrawn...or has it by virtue of her no longer being conscious?

    In my view there was no rape as consent had obviously been given previously and was still in effect.

    What are the rules...anyone?

    ReplyDelete
  11. the drunken watchman13 Jul 2010, 11:56:00

    What's the difference between Divine Brown and the Tai Tokerau Trust?

    they both had a huge grant and blew it.)

    ReplyDelete
  12. James, I agree completely with your analysis above. It is the idiot feminazis from around the country and holier-than-thou people like Russell Brown who are persecuting Robin Brooke.

    The woman in question, wanted to shag Robin Brooke and it is fair to assume that she wouldn't care if she fell asleep when they were having sex. That woman went to heaven on that night (with Brooke the driver), FFS, she should have thanked Brooke for that, because she would have probably had to use her vibrator for masturbation (which we know that it is not a good substitute for the real thing).

    The furore over Haden’s comment was not about the role he held before he resigned. The would have been public outburst (lead by feminazis & priests as Russell Brown) anyway, whether Haden was an RWC ambassador or not. Kerre Woodham was correct when she said in her article that not all women were victims. There is no doubt that the woman in the center of this story had shagged non-sport stars in the past and perhaps she felt asleep during those encounters, but she didn’t come forward to make a complain to the Police, simply because those bartender boys had no money or had no status in the society. We’ve seen this time and time again these days. The claim that their lives had been destroyed from such past incidents is simply made up.

    ReplyDelete

We welcome thoughtful disagreement.
Thanks to a few abusers however, we (ir)regularly moderate comments.
We *will* delete comments with insulting or abusive language, unless they're entertaining. We will also delete totally inane comments. Try to make some sense. We are much more likely to allow critical comments if you have the honesty and courage to use your real name.