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.

It’s so disgusting to suggest women there who were terrified, still terrified, some of them physically assaulted, wanted any of this. What they wanted was to speak. They did not get that chance.

Including the 70 year old who was punched repeatedly in the face? Unprovoked

Do you include her?

I now think anyone trying the ‘both sides are as bad as each other’ tactic realises just how poorly these people who threaten, intimidate and assault women speaking are behaving.

They then use the ‘both sides are as bad’ to attempt to create symmetry where there is no symmetry at all. But if someone who is lacking critical thinking ability or is new to the argument hears the ‘both sides’ they might agree without understanding that it is a tactic.

By using ‘both sides are as bad as the other’, posters attempt to portray women as violent and hateful and deceitful. Deceitful, because if you listen to the chants at these events most of the chants are untrue or not even reflective of what the women speaking at the events believe. It is the twisted understanding of a group who needs to portray themselves as persecuted (whether they are or not).

The women are clearly not violent, so must be portrayed to be ‘wanting this reaction’ to make it seem more symmetrical. And they are portrayed as hateful, because people need to cling onto that as a motivator.

The women can never be allowed to simply disagree, can never allowed to simply be angry with the changes that they have been harmed by and want to discuss, because that doesn’t fit the ‘they are the baddies’, they want the violence and to be silenced narrative.

So, ‘both sides’ in the instance of women seeking to establish boundaries around their sex based rights and needs against the push from another group, is a panacea for people who disagree with those women. It makes them feel better for the abhorrent behaviour of a few violent extremists who have seemed to have gotten away with their intimidation and violent tactics.

It is not ‘both sides’. Only one side is determined to silence women’s voices through any tactic possible. No debate stopped working, now it has escalated to violence.

I don't disagree with a word of that, Helleofabore

They are 75% gov funded.

Scared of losing that funding isn't she.

Absolutely. She knows she has to sing off that hymn sheet or lose funding!

The 'both sides' tactic results in dehumanising women who want to discuss these issues.

The 'both sides' tactic results in dehumanising women to the point that they are deemed as deserving of that violence. And deemed as hateful things that should just 'shut the fact up' or else they will get what is coming to them.

Fuck. It is so fucking clear what the tactic is.

And yet, any poster who is attempting the 'the want the protestors' has never obviously seen any of the speakers corners where there have been no protestors. The events where women speak, others listen, sometimes agree and sometimes don't, but everyone gets heard, people talk to each other and it is ALL about speaking, to others, on camera or off, amongst others.

Only a fucked up and incoherent agenda would ever, ever position these events as 'the women want the protestors'.

Only one side is determined to silence women’s voices through any tactic possible. No debate stopped working, now it has escalated to violence.

A good post all up and agree. If they admit the violence is there it’s clear they’ve lost. They fear losing something, what is that?

It’s troubling to see posters so committed to ignoring unprovoked violence against women on here, in the feminism section.

@Helleofabore , thank you for producing more reasoned responses than I could have managed.
@landOFconfusion at least you admit it wasn't KJK's fault. But do you really think women want violence like that? That we are masochists? Don't want to be heard? Actually, don't bother answering. You've shown yourself for what you are.

Both sides got what they wanted from the confrontation. This is not an opinion - it is a simple fact.

There’s literally another discussion going on in this forum in which KJK supporters are crowing about how grateful they are for the violent confrontation in Auckland. Why don’t you go and scowl at them - instead of the performative fake outrage that you’re directing at me. I’m not swayed by your crocodile tears.

I’ve seen a lot of crazy things on this board and a lot of claims about what women fighting against gender ideology actually want. I’m not sure I can remember anyone suggesting before that women want to be punched and terrified. The women I know who invited Posie, wanted to be heard. It’s that simple. They wanted fair and balanced reporting and a chance for others in NZ to speak and be heard. Nobody wanted to be falsely connected to neo nazis, especially the Maori women who denounced them before Posie had arrived. Wanting publicity is not the same as wanting violence. Posies visit could have had the same impact without any violence whatsoever.

Both sides got what they wanted from the confrontation. This is not an opinion

Why such ugly views? A 70 year old woman was punched repeatedly. You haven’t answered if she got what she wanted

It’s abhorrent. What’s happened to you to make you post as you do?

The punching was disgraceful and despicable. It was an awful and cowardly act that should be condemned for its brutality.

That being said, both sides (and by this I mean KJK and the protestors) got exactly what they wanted from the events that unfolded.

There may be posters 'crowing' about the outcome.

That does not mean that the protestors were 'wanted'. If you cannot understand the difference, just admit you cannot understand the difference between 'wanting the violence & intimidation' and 'trying to use that violence & intimidation to show the world that women cannot speak without these tactics being deployed to silence them' and move on.

Women do not want to have these violent, intimidating tactics used on their events. It really seems to be a disconnect in logic, or a significant and entrenched prejudice to try to portray this otherwise. Women want to attend the rally, maybe speak if they want to, but to meet others and listen to women who do speak. There is no ulterior motive.

However, if the intimidating and violent protestors turn up, what are women expected to do? To quietly pack up and leave? Or to just speak nicely and calmly so people who want to use some kind of fucked up argument cannot use that 'both sides' argument and simply never say a harsh word? It seems that to some posters, women should not use the protestors complete lack of ability to allow others to voice words that they cannot bear to hear to show the world what these protestors are doing and how false is the media presentation of what happened.

It is clear now from all these posts that you, someone who victim blames Fred Sargeant, believes that if a woman shows the world what is happening, that they most certainly 'want that violence and intimidations, wanted it in the first place and deserved it'.

"performative fake outrage that you’re directing at me. I’m not swayed by your crocodile tears."

You really cannot contribute without the personal attacks can you? It does reflect your polarised approach. You cannot present a coherent alternative view that stands up to scrutiny and analysis.

But please do carry on, because with each post you post, readers see the pattern. And it really is a good live demonstration of the extreme activist tactics being used to silence women. I call this one the 'both sides' fallacy.

Really, do keep going with this 'both sides'.

I think we shall just keep pointing out why you are doing it, whether it is something you are intentionally doing or just a habit of yours.

I’m glad you said the former as it was becoming tough read, distressing that anyone would think a woman deserves an unprovoked punch, it’s good no one on this feminism board thinks that.

By protestors do you mean the TRA protestors? As the women who turned up to speak just wanted to do that and didn’t get to.

I think the event has exposed the violence but I doubt KJK wanted to fear for her life and think she might not see her children again.

And the grift just continues. This is just a double assault. The actual assault that sends you to a rape refuge. And then the societal/institutional assault when you get there.

Well, of course they've had no problems with men in the most private of female spaces, you say anything against this, and you're out.

Just checking out Ang's adams apple...

I'm deeply suspicious of anyone who feels that women should learn to 're frame their trauma' and suffer quietly for the benefit of men who have no equal responsibilities whatsoever.

And no. No excuse for violence. None. Ever. Two year olds learn this successfully.

Oh wow. You are actually doing the “Ang Jury is not a woman because she has a pronounced adam’s apple”.

Amazing.

I think it's very important that someone ask her this.

Can I just check I am understanding you correctly - you say the women who were assaulted 'got what they wanted', yes? This is your take?

You are on a feminist board, telling us that a woman who was assaulted, threatened and abused got what she wanted.

Astonishing. Do keep going, though. It's useful, if depressing.

Some posters are a bit...insert word of choice here

It really is very clear and once you see it , you cannot unsee it.

A 'peaceful' protest would be entirely different. The actions of these groups that are being reported as 'counter protesting' are not peaceful or respectful in anyway.

There has never been any way to justify the violent and intimidatory tactics used. Never. Yet, we see it time and time again.

I read "The punching was disgraceful and despicable. It was an awful and cowardly act that should be condemned for its brutality." and realised that the got what they wanted statement before it shows this denouncement of violence in a whole different light.