NZ women's refuge CEO says KJK "inflamed people with her rhetoric"

[JacquelinePot]

The Platform NZ has been doing excellent coverage all week on KJK's trip to NZ and the violence of so-called activists meted out against women.

This interview is with Ang Jury, CEO of NZ "women's" refuge. They have 40 refuges across NZ each with 6-15 staff. C1000 referrals p/w. They are 75% gov funded.

Angry says at 7 mins 30 thebjost asks about "transwomen" in refuges. Ang says yes, "transgender women" are part of the vulnerable population ie women do are welcome. Apparently there have been "no issues".

At 13 mins he says "Auckland was VAW". Ang concedes it was "ugly" but "she [Ang never says KJK's name] had inflamed people with her rhetoric" and "there's a whole lot now blame that can be attached", both sides etc.

Of all the people who should be standing up for women. Ffs.

This is perpetrator-style thinking. Shocking that this woman is supposed to be looking out for abused women. She should be ashamed of herself.

There are only two things that I hate about NZ politicians, the NZ MSM and the NZ Government dependant social services: every thing that they say and everything that they do.

I hope that they are proud. I wouldn't be.

In other words, ‘she was asking for it, says leader of women’s refuges. Hmmm…

Shocking that this woman is supposed to be looking out for abused women

Wonder if she makes sure women are pure enough before helping them. ''But did you burn his dinner? Did you look at him funny? Were you being divisive or expressing an opinion he didn't give you permission to have?''

No wonder they have such a problem with DV when this is the repugnant attitude of even the orgs supposed to help them.

And I bet there's been ''no issues'' in the same way that Barbie Kardashian terrorising women and staff in women's prison is a ''non-issue''.

Like Karen White and all the others after him were a ''non-issue''.

Like the women excluding from Rape Crisis Scotland because of the foul man in charge was a ''non-issue''.

Like the girls skipping school or not drinking when at school because their loos are mixed sex is a ''non-issue''.

Like the women beaten, raped and pregnant in women's prisons by the men placed there in the US is a ''non-issue''.

Like women being raped on ''women-only'' hospital wards and then being psychologically abused by nurses who obstruct police investigations is a ''non-issue''.

Like women being kicked out of miscarriage and stillbirth support groups because they refused to play along with some bloke in a shit wig pretending he's given birth to a dead baby was a ''non-issue''.

These idiots are confused. ''I don't give a shit'' is not the same as ''there are no issues here''.

It's a ''non-issue'' to them because it's only women and girls affected. And as we all know, they don't matter.

Excellent points 👏

Tbh I’m not surprised at this attitude from someone proclaiming to protect females. NZ have incredibly high rates of DV, 3rd worse in the world. Think about that for a moment.

Then you have a police force that did absolutely nothing to protect females wanting to speak. Politicians who don’t seem to care and the msm who are ineffective.

NZ has been racist (towards the Māori) for a very long time, as well as misogynistic towards the females, despite it giving females the vote before any other country which they often hold on to when claiming they aren’t whatever.

And this is the same country that initially refused to let in one of their own female citizens who was pregnant, single and needed to escape Qatar where she was at risk.

Afghanistan was going to help her until again global pressure forced NZ to let her in under their quarantine system. A system that could have let her return in the first place.

Jesus fucking Christ some people will defend the fucking indefensible.

And if you think this post is about you...then yes it is.

I wonder if the women actually working at the sharp end in these refuges think that there's "no problem".

The woman quoted in this article from 2017 seems to understand:
"Even as little as 20 years ago, it was "bloody hard" to get police to do anything about it unless someone was in a bleeding heap.
"They were still talking about things just being 'a domestic'. Or saying things like 'I'd give her a slap too if she spoke to me like that'." "

And talks about her own hard life and men "who should never have been left lone with small girl children".

OH wait... Its the same person. What happened in the last 6 years? Doesn't she see the hypocrisy. Its like everyone's been infected by a mind virus on this issue.

Dr Ang Jury - The Refuge Boss | Stuff.co.nz

Also, I am sure that transwomen ARE victims of DV and are vulnerable and need support. But why can't that be done in a way that also protects women, e.g. separate accommodation. When she tries to justify it its so vague and simplistic "because they are the vulnerable of the vulnerable", "because the way society treats these people is... not good". Whereas when she talks about other stuff she's very eloquent. Its strange.

Women’s Refuge uses separate accommodation in New Zealand. The victims of domestic violence - and their families - are housed in discretely situated safe houses in locations that are kept secret.

I'm not 100% sure that's true. I had a look, and it seems to say that there are self contained apartments in one refuge (as you describe), and other places where the bathroom is ensuite, but the kitchen is shared. And others which are described as "a safe bed" - in these I would assume but don't know there is a degree of sharing of facilities.

But if it is the case that everyone is self contained and don't come into contact with each other that's great - why didn't she say that though given the chance? It would clear up most peoples objections, what it wouldn't do of course is push the narrative that TW are not only the one group that never ever harm anyone else but also that no-one in real life (specially female victims of abuse) would object to their presence. Unless you think that really most people are complaining because they just don't want transwomen to have anything for the sake of it? Its nothing to do with women's safety at all?

But why @landOFconfusion if males with a trans identity are women as you Claim, and no threat to women, why would they need separate accommodation? Are you in fact inferring there is a difference?

Women’s Refuges in NZ use separate accommodation for the victims of domestic violence - and their families - because it increases the privacy, security and dignity of highly vulnerable people.

If an abusive partner uncovers the location of their victim then it places everyone within a shared accommodation facility at risk.

Trans people should campaign and fundraise for their own refuge. A woman’s refuge is for women, funds given are decided based on the needs of women.

This CEO though, shouldn’t be leading any refuge because she victim blames. It’s totally reprehensible for someone in her position.

@landOFconfusion so do you think the violence was KJK's fault?

That.

Women in the western world are going to die needlessly in DV/DA situations because of people politicised to a faith based, religious extremist MRA political movement.

But no one important cares, because only women, and if bad things are done to them by men it was probably because they deserved for the men to do it.

If the person in danger was trans, particularly if they were male, it would not be considered at all acceptable. And that is how you know that it is totally morally indefensible. The group without equal access to law and the powerful not caring as they would for other humans, even to the point of rape, injury and death? That's how you identify actually oppressed groups, as opposed to groups quite liking the feels and sounds of cos playing it.

This needs to be repeated.

All those saying ‘not an issue’ need to clarify how many women and children will be considered acceptable collateral. Because it just seems like n+1 to me.

“It is not an issue “ is in the same league of delusion as “that never happens”. It is the most vulnerable who cannot speak up on this. That is the female half of the adult human population and children who are actually the most vulnerable because speaking up means they may lose the services they need for their survival.

Auckland was VAW". Ang concedes it was "ugly" but "she had inflamed people with her rhetoric"

"LOOK WHAT YOU MADE ME DO" 🤛😡🤜

I wrote to her years ago about an all black who had beat his partner and following them selecting him anyway the coach actually said in defence, ‘ violence isn’t a gendered problem, women do it too’. I asked her to speak publicly, write to NZR, because there was no official kind of pushback. She wrote such an unbelievably rude reply to me. Very dismissive. I had shared my experience with DV and everything and there wasn’t even a, sorry for your experience in it.

Women’s Refuges in NZ use separate accommodation for the victims of domestic violence - and their families - because it increases the privacy, security and dignity of highly vulnerable people.

So you acknowledge women need a safe space away from males then? If even even you are accepting TW are not women, why do you believe they should be allowed into any spaces where males without a trans identity are excluded from?

<tumbleweed>

The violence witnessed at the protest wasn’t her fault. Both sides got what they wanted from the confrontation.

What a ridiculous thing to say.

You say that, yet yesterday’s event in Hyde Park was how the event in Auckland should have been. Women speaking so people attending can hear their testimony in person, whether they agree with what that woman says or not.

No. Neither Kellie Jay Keen nor the women organising or intending to speak or just intending to hear ‘got what they wanted’.

You have a very warped view on these events. And a very warped view on violence. You seem to be of the opinion that anyone who protests and you disagree that they should have that right to protest that policy, law, whatever, then ‘get what they deserve’ as per Fred Sargeant’s significant assault for peacefully protesting at Pride.

You have a very polarised ‘good / bad’ understanding to life and along with that seem to support violence from protestors you deem as ‘righteous’ as if you see they are the ‘goodies’ and everyone present at the time that opposes them for any reason is a ‘baddie’ and therefore violence towards the baddies is exceptable. Because the baddie ‘deserved it’ or in this case ‘wanted it’.

No. Having been to quite a few at Hyde Park when it was the norm to have no protestors, I suggest that she doesn’t want protestors there at all, because it is counter productive for her spending all the time and effort to hold the event and then not have women speak there. Why would she have travelled to Australia and NZ, to have had her family threatened, if she didn’t want as many women to speak as possible? And more women come normally when there are no protestors. The noise is overwhelming for many to start with.

Why don’t you ask Kellie Jay Keen outright on a Tuesday using the free phone in number whether she ‘wants’ protestors at the events?

Do that instead of posting your completely made up and illogical views on the internet? Do that and then come back and tell us what she said.

Of course, many of us will have heard it anyway so will be able to verify it …. Or not.