Standing for Women - NZ tour discussion. (To prevent further derailing of the thread for centring the women)

[Helleofabore]

Let’s move the general discussion about the New Zealand ‘Let Women Speak’ tour out of the thread set up to centre the women speaking at the Australian and New Zealand tours.

This was the live feed.

https://www.youtube.com/live/eDuy2Kx2HlI?feature=share

The event was over run by violent trans activists. Not only did they use the usual intimidation tactics, but also threw substances at Kellie Jay, the women and the security.

Yeah they change ministers a lot there. The health minister that was there at start of covid kept breaking the rules and driving places to go on bike rides and crap like that 😂 three times! Imagine what the papers would do to him here! They’ve got a minister who kept giving contracts to her family Inc husband, still there though… it starts to look a bit like we don’t know what we’re doing. Mind you I say that about uk too 😂

Interestingly, I started a thread with a youtube vid of press conference with NZ PM about Aukland (got lost in the many threads I think)

Early on, on the soup question, Hipkins said something about 'not a brick/or a brick' or something.

I'm also thinking about regular poster Musky's now deleted comment about 'it should have been a brick'.

I'm thinking, that this link to the stonewall riot and the 'first brick', must be part of the TRA narrative and the 'fight against terfs'

Strange that the PM would say that.

I think Sean from The Platform podcast (who has the call in with the NZ women you posted Whaeanui) asks a question about the women- which gets utterly lost in the focus on what the Green MP said about cis white males, and questions about what the government will continue to do for the trans
community.
Link to press conference (the brick comment is near the start i think):

It's at about 5.40 mins

Especially for pp who claimed Brian Tamaki was at or joined Posies event, false. He asked, she turned him down Posie turned down Brian Tamaki request

I'd say that when your explicit goal is to use violence and the threat of violence to terrify people in order to prevent them from freely and publicly expressing opinions and freely organising around a political issue, you're veering very close to what could in all earnest be described as terrorism.

Perhaps the scale of the violence and the level of organisation isn't quite terrorism yet, but they are escalating. And make no mistake, frightening people out of speaking up is the goal. Loads of them proudly state this. And you'd have to admit that they have achieved that goal to some extent.

Terror will only get you so far, though. It's not sustainable.

This is so weird to read about. I'm in NZ, I'm a woman (born, if you really must know) and I don't feel at all silenced. Kiwi women speak all the damn time and we're proud of it. Just because you disagree with what happened yesterday (and I condemn any violence to either group), does not mean women here are silenced and terrified. We're not.

So naive. Open your ears and eyes. You aren't silenced and terrified because you're not yet guilty of wrong think. Just those other women, right? And who cares, because they're wrong? Censorship is no problem when you didn't want to say it anyway. Condone it at your peril, because you're a fool if you think you'll never end up on the 'wrong' side of the line with people like that.

Violence to either group? There's only ever been one violent group here and it's most assuredly not LWS.

And goodness! That Eli the soup chucker, what absolute whine fest his thread is, full of propaganda and lies from his supporters.

One of them claimed that some TW protected a club from bikers, so why didn't they attack Tamaki and his lot?

But we say mean words like men can't be women. So much literal violence there. I'm sorry I've subjected your eyes to my words!

Please forgive me

I had to go and lie down in a darkened room after such graphic horror.

Apologies. I feel terrible for doing that tho you. Let me make amends. I will go and indulge in some self-flagellation.

As penance of course!

No other reason!

@Whaeanui

I just read this, you may well know about it, I thought that you might find a parallel, with some of the things you've told us.

https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/series/voices-on-the-voice

@SinnerBoy thank you very much, I know a little bit but I’m familiar with the struggle they have had there. I don’t know if you’ve seen or read Rabbit Proof Fence, it’s heart wrenching, it really is. I looked up some YouTube interviews with people who don’t know where they come from because of the stolen generation of aboriginal Australians. They’re hard to watch but they deserve to be heard and I think people in Britain should learn about them and what Britain did, as part of school here. Aside from the pain and devastation to them and their communities, ignoring them and their extensive knowledge of the environment has affected all Australians. Their knowledge and skill at managing the lands, to protect from out of control fires as an example, can’t be matched and not including them over the decades has caused irreparable damage to Australia’s flora and fauna. Their medicinal knowledge interested me the most when I was younger. Reading those links, it is such a common story but no less awful.

We were just talking about the rabbit fence the other day (I'm on an Aussie ship) but it was from a farmer's perspective. I've read about the stolen generation, a similar thing happened in Canada.

I remember reading about Aboriginal fire clearing in National Geographic, back in the 90s - they had some white Aussie land management people, who wanted to pay Aboriginal people to do their thing, to keep massive bush fires at bay.

I guess that one didn't work out.

I heard about Rabbit Proof Fence a while back, a tragic story. What an utterly shitty thing to do to people. Canada too, I heard a lot about that in the ex-boarders group I'm in.

Also seen several videos about the old methods of burning small fires to prevent larger ones and it looks fascinating. Whilst Australia is a completely different environment to the UK, I work in woodland and this sort of stuff interests me greatly.

@DameMaud I'd assumed the "whether its soup or a brick" comment was a reference to the Protests outside the parliament that began peacefully but ended in street fighting on 2nd March. Sort of a deliberate comparison between the really bad protesters (who threw bricks) and the better protesters (who only threw soup if you ignore everything else that happened). But I hadn't spotted its similarity to Eli and Musky's comments

Children from the UK were sent to Australia and also Canada and were used as servants, mistreated, etc. They were surplus and just got rid of. This horror doesn't only affect indigenous people - though, of course, most of the children from the UK were indigenous (English DNA is mostly Celtic with a dash of Anglo-Saxon). Misery for many. Do not forget the those poor children.

And the massed shipping out of working class children was largely carried out by do-gooders making decisions about unfit parents Not Like Them, and about what a wonderful thing they were doing for those children, removing them from poor adults (and socially punishing said adults.) It was not properly investigated or thought about as to the appalling destruction of families and the appalling abuse many of those children were sent to.

And it escalated into this appalling mess from initial good intentions by those seeing children sent up chimneys and dying of starvation on the streets in London, who hoped that by funding these children in extremity to go to a country in desperate need of labour on the land, they stood more chance of living to adulthood.

So many parallels of escalation and snobbery/righteousness.

I might be misremembering but I think part of the reason for shipping over British kids was demographics. Perhaps partly to swamp the indigenous people and partly to have a large population of people with a loyalty to a British motherland going forward.

They were surplus and just got rid of.

No these children what not surplus. Many were loved babies that women were tricked into handing over for temporary care whilst they tried to find work and a home, having been abandoned by the father. Often as not those doing this were nuns, and social services were complicit.

These stolen babies where then sent to various part of the then UK "colonies" to not only be cheap labour, but help create a white majority in lands where white people were a minority trying to usurp and occupy the land of the native peoples.

I dont have time to find the links but there was a famoun film made about this, and it was only recently that apologies have been issued by current governments about this abuse and kidnapping.

Not sure that the UK itself has ever apologised.

Actually, firestick farming changed the landscape of Australia considerably. At one stage, there was a great many more rainforests.

'Firestick farming' burnt out the rainforests and what grew back was the Eucalyptus and breeds of trees and shrubs that loved fire and at times needed fire to either regenerate or to open seed pods. The rainforest plants had large leaves that deflected fires around the core of the forest. The Eucalyptus forests allowed the fires to spread right through.

Some aboriginal groups used Firestick farming to herd the animals into areas to capture them. I suspect that there is some romanticism about Firestick farming.

Much is now known about back burning which could be said to be based on these processes. Unfortunately, back burning is also considered hazardous by some for air pollution as well as the harm to the native animals in the way of that fire. It is needed, but it is also being fought by groups with other interests. It needs to be managed very carefully around areas where there are large populations in consideration for that pollution aspect.

When I studied aspects of this in the 90s, it was recognised that replanting with fleshy leafed plants and clearing away sticks, leaves and branches etc were very important.

But it was the fires that changed the landscape in the first place according to some historians/geographers/botanists. I am sure there may be others who disagree as it is with many things these days.

I’m not sure, maybe it depends who you talk to but firestick farming is better than the busy fires of recent years.

Fire is another issue, says Dr Ens. In the absence of traditional burning – characterised by regular controlled low-intensity fires – the unchecked growth of “above-ground biomass” has led to the large, high-intensity and incredibly destructive bushfires that have ravaged Australia in recent years.
This has resulted in change to the whole ecosystem,” says Dr Ens. “In some places, we’ve seen declines in rainforest-type species and other reductions in species that require longer intervals between fire or lower intensity fire.”
Recent years has seen a renewed appreciation for practices such as fire-stick farming. “In Northern Australia where I work,” says Dr Ens, “the reintroduction of traditional burning practices has reduced those big late dry season fires, so we have lower intensity burns.

When Europeans arrived in 1788, they brought with them an approach to land management that was in direct conflict with the long-established practices of the continent’s Aboriginal custodians. They seized and cleared land and built fences to demarcate property ownership, a concept unheard of in Aboriginal thinking.

They quickly prohibited the practice of traditional burning, which allowed ‘understorey’ vegetation to grow unchecked and crowd out previously productive grasslands.

www.sbs.com.au/topics/voices/culture/article/2021/03/17/firestick-farming-how-traditional-indigenous-burning-protected-bush

Bush!

Yes I studied the effects of fire stick farming in the 90s when I studied horticulture and the native forests around Sydney. And having lived on the outskirts of Sydney or in Sydney beside national park, there is a huge amount of discussion as to how to balance the needs of the bush and that of the people who have health issues and the animals that are vulnerable in Sydney and in most large cities. Plus, I lived on a farm for many many years and we used to back burn regularly particularly close to scrubland to protect our paddocks from bushfires coming out of the scrub.

Back burning has been used for as long as I have been alive, and that is quite a number of decades.

It still is not fail proof though and fires still get away.

And it is always interesting to read about what forests were growing where from the fossils, petrified remnants etc. Because fire seems to have shaped landscape for millennia to be what it is today.

Thanks for info namity.
I wasn't aware of that protest.