Plumbing the depths

David Garrett seems to be pretty good at digging all on his own without the equipment of the oil rig he once worked on.

In trying to excuse his inappropriate behaviour towards an Act staff member, he’s now made an inappropriate comment that reflects on half the population of Tonga – the women of that country.

Garrett “apologised” for his lewd conduct at Paliament by saying:

I’m on a very steep learning curve, I now understand very clearly that the kind of thing that might have been okay in a law firm in Tonga is not in Parliament.

So it is not okay to offend women in your New Zealand Parliamentary office, but it is okay to offend women in your Tongan law office?

Not just a sexist attitude then, but a racist one to boot. Sexual harassment is not okay – anywhere!

UPDATE (25/06/09): It seems that Garrett is now in trouble with the Tongan legal community and one promiment lawyer has already made official complaints with New Zealand’s High Commissioner in Tonga and with Act leader Rodney Hide over thos comment.

Advertisements

23 thoughts on “Plumbing the depths

  1. “So it is not okay to offend women in your New Zealand Parliamentary office, but it is okay to offend women in your Tongan law office?

    Not just a sexist attitude then, but a racist one to boot. Sexual harassment is not okay – anywhere!”

    Thats not what he’s saying at all Toad…stop your BS…if you can.There was NO sexual harrassment of anyone….except Garrett because hes’a man,and thats a crime as far as sad lefty feminazis are concerned…and he’s in the enemy camp as you and the rest of the socialists see it.I don’t recall a similar reaction to Phil Goffs observation that the indian Women at the heart of the Richard Worth saga was “strikingly beautiful….what relavance did that have to the matter?

    Garrett may as well have said here in NZ as its a fact that sexual jokes are a part of Kiwi workplaces as Watties sauce is at BBQ’s.And you know what?….Most Women participate and enjoy the banter as well as the men.Its a sign that barriers have faded and people feel at ease with each other that they can get a little risky with their co workers…perfectly natural and good.Its human interaction at its best and it will be a sad day when its gone.

    What kind of weird ,shielded fantasy world do you and the other handwringers live in?

    What kind of cold,sterial world do you have as your ideal?

    No thanks!

  2. Have to agree with James here toad, your predujices are showing.

    Not a dickiebird about the Labour honeytrap set for Worth.

    But hey, it must be about time for a Rankin rave. Are your fingers poised?

    And your name calling of David Garrett with reference to a horrible strangulation technique on other blog postings is a sure sign of maturity, not.

    Rational debate seems to have left your thoughts toad. Pity.

  3. Guys, do you really believe that either of these men are able to use the ‘honeytrap’ defense?

    A wo/man who harrasses, either men or women, either verbally or physically, is a sexual harrasser.

    I know men personally who have been very offended by the assumption made by another man, that sexually harrasaing comments will be not just tolerated, but agreed with, due to the gender of the hearer.

    This a a paradigm of thinking about sex whose time has past, and those who think that they can continue to gain or keep respect by behaving in this manner, will be sorely disappointed.

    There are reasons why the Public Service regards sexual harrassment in the workplace to be a very serious infringement on another’s rights; especially within the precincts of Parliament, where staff often work longer hours than other public servants, and must therefore put up with those they are employed to serve (ie: politicians) under more extreme circumstances than a regular glide-time desk job.

    Welcome to the new millenium, in case you hadn’t noticed …

  4. James said: Its a sign that barriers have faded and people feel at ease with each other that they can get a little risky with their co workers…

    And if people don’t feel sufficiently easy with each other that they can get “a little risky”? There are probably only three people I have ever worked with who I would feel I could readily engage in humour involving sexual inuendo without fear of being misunderstood. And Garrett’s, by all accounts, wasn’t even humour – it was a gross reference to the woman concerned performing oral sex.

    Gerrit said: And your name calling of David Garrett with reference to a horrible strangulation technique on other blog postings…

    Parody, Gerrit, is imo a much higher form of humour than smut (although smut based on a clever and often unintended pun can be funny). And parody is often not far from the truth. The “Three strikes and you’re garrotted” post to which you refer, incidentally, has had more reads than any other post ever on g.blog.

  5. toad,

    What is your parody is bad taste for someone else.

    Just like somebody elses bad taste sexual comment is anothers’ ribald spoof.

    If readeship is a measure of making a comment OK, I could pick out any number of racist and sexist comments from this blog and make them OK too?

  6. If readeship is a measure of making a comment OK, I could pick out any number of racist and sexist comments from this blog and make them OK too?

    I think Toad was implying that there was actually some good argument in the post because it resonated with people, rather than just being a cheap attack on Garrett.

    And no, if we make racist or sexist comments on this blog, it’s not okay, and we should realise our mistakes and apologise in a way that doesn’t make the offense worse. Which is exactly why Toad had a right to criticise Garrett. Have you actually got any examples, or are you just talking hypotheticals? 😉

  7. “Guys, do you really believe that either of these men are able to use the ‘honeytrap’ defense?”

    In Worths case yes…the evidience suggests this Women told Goff about the txts and her relationship with Worth (why did she carry it on if she was “so offended” by any sexual advances he was sure to make….hes only human) long before Goff told Key so its plain that Worth was being set up.Sure hes a dick who exercised poor judgement but Labour set him up…no question.

    “A wo/man who harrasses, either men or women, either verbally or physically, is a sexual harrasser.”

    Garrett did nothing of the sort..as far as we know.One comment does not constitute harrassment.It was a male (in name only it seems )who got all prissy and told Rodney…probably to damage Garrett more than out of concern for this Women.I suspect this guy and Garrett have had issues and this is payback.

    “I know men personally who have been very offended by the assumption made by another man, that sexually harrasaing comments will be not just tolerated, but agreed with, due to the gender of the hearer.”

    Those men are really “Mem”….feministed men.And theres no such thing as “sexually harrassing comments” spoken between two people when the subject is not present…its called free speech.

    “This a a paradigm of thinking about sex whose time has past, and those who think that they can continue to gain or keep respect by behaving in this manner, will be sorely disappointed.”

    No…it will live on and be treasured as a bastion against PC thought control fascists.People will continue to speak their minds about all sorts of things,sex included.If employers want to set rules for the workplace then thats fine….but people will be people.

    “There are reasons why the Public Service regards sexual harrassment in the workplace to be a very serious infringement on another’s rights; especially within the precincts of Parliament, where staff often work longer hours than other public servants, and must therefore put up with those they are employed to serve (ie: politicians) under more extreme circumstances than a regular glide-time desk job.”

    Continued harrassment of another,sexual or otherwise is a breah of a persons human rights….its a breach of their right to liberty but no such harrassment took place in this instance as far as we know.

  8. @james#7: “One comment does not constitute harrassment.”

    It can james. It seems like he said something about sucking his cock. To any woman thats gotto be harassment even if he only said it once.

  9. @james#7: “One comment does not constitute harrassment.”

    It can james. It seems like he said something about sucking his cock. To any woman thats gotto be harassment even if he only said it once.”

    Bullshit.She may well have LOL and said something cutting herself.One time is not harrassment….by definition it must be activity thats repeated and unwanted….thats not the case here as far as we know.

    As Iv’e just posted on another thread…

    “Whatever it seems she didn’t find it something to complain about…the wet male staffer did.If Garrett made such a coment I am in no doubt he was on friendly terms with the women to the point of feeling at ease enough to do so.Its the male staffer who’s taken it upon himself to complain on behalf of this women when she may have had no problem with the comment and didn’t want him to complain on her behalf…

    I hate crawly little snits like that.”

    I have met people like that first hand…they intefere in something that doesn’t concern them and go out of their way to cause trouble.

    I think he won’t have a long future in the ACT offices after this…

  10. james said: I think he won’t have a long future in the ACT offices after this…

    If you are talking about Garrett, I think you might be right. He’s seriously compromised the libertarian and “values not politics” brand that Rodney tried to promote for ACT.

    And proven himself a sleazeball to boot!

  11. James,
    your post refuting my arguments is exactly the attitude towards women that I am talking about.

    FWIW, my friend who was offended, was listening to comments being made to female friends of his, in his hearing, which he was expected to agree with the speaker on, simply due to the biological fact of them both being men.

    That particular employer was taken to mediation by the whole paid staff of the office concerned, and serious consequences were faced by the harasser.
    Unpaid contributors to the same workplace (a mixed paid/voluntary environment) also made complaints, but were not part of the mediation process due to the fact that they had no salary contract, thus Dept of Labour had no jurisdiction over their conditions of ‘work’.

    While that situation was not a political campaign office, it is significantly similar to many places where I have worked on campaigns; and that kind of behaviour has never been tolerated in any arena where I have worked on political campaigning.

    As I said before, this is the new millenium, and young people do want higher standards for their workplaces than those your generation has set in place.

  12. Can’t see my comment from before, so I apologise if I am saying this twice:

    What David Garrett said was laughable, as in, most normal people would laugh.

    Here is the man who is campaigning that violent criminals, the people who physically maim, abuse and scare the hell out of others, get proper judicial warning not to do it again, and are kept inside where they can’t hurt other people, for longer stretches of time.

    Try sitting down with the parents of a teenager murdered by a parolee, or with a woman seriously and maliciously sexually interfered with – and I mean physically – not words – and then take a look at where our justice system is at, and then do your beat-up on David Garrett.

    He is a bloke – we used to have those in NZ.

    What is disgusting is the way National have fiddled the Sentencing and Parole Reform Bill to bugger the principles of three strikes – that is – very serious violent offences.

    What is frightening is the way our justice system concerns itself with the trivial, wasting thousands and thousands of dollars on BS, when a murderer might get 25 years at most and then walk the streets again.

    Stop the madness.

  13. Try sitting down with the parents of a teenager murdered by a parolee, or with a woman seriously and maliciously sexually interfered with – and I mean physically – not words – and then take a look at where our justice system is at, and then do your beat-up on David Garrett.

    I can’t speak for everyone, but I know I personally have had plenty of contact with victims of rape and violent crime who share my opinions of David Garrett. So I suggest you rethink your “you won’t understand because you’re not wild like I am” attitude elsewhere.

  14. Err, that elsewhere was my tired brain shifting back into first. Feel free to disregard it 😉

  15. Look love, I might be wild, but I am entitled to my attitude.

    Born to be wild! Yeah!

  16. James,
    your post refuting my arguments is exactly the attitude towards women that I am talking about.”

    What….that Women should be treated as equal with Men until they prove they aren’t up to it? That Women have independant minds as well as Men and may want to use them inspite of what you and the colletivist sisterhood want?…yes we can’t have Women breaking off and not towing the PC” Im a victim because I have a vagina” party line can we…?

    “FWIW, my friend who was offended, was listening to comments being made to female friends of his, in his hearing, which he was expected to agree with the speaker on, simply due to the biological fact of them both being men.”

    Thats collectivism….just a different sort to the one size fits all mindset you have re Women and what they should and shouldn’t think.

  17. Look love, I might be wild, but I am entitled to my attitude.

    Born to be wild! Yeah!

    LOL. You sure are. But don’t expect it not to explode tired Ari’s temper now and then. 🙂

  18. James –

    your syntax, grammar and ideas are looking remarkably familiar.

    and very close to being moderated off the blog for unacceptable spin.

    warned.

  19. “James –

    your syntax, grammar and ideas are looking remarkably familiar.

    and very close to being moderated off the blog for unacceptable spin.

    warned.”

    Translation: You can’t handle a counter argument abnd therefore want to ban the person making it…? From the Hand wringing Mirror are we….big suprise.

    Plase explain what parts of what I have said deserve censoring…and for what legitimate reason…apart from confounding you.Nothing in my last post is abusive or nasty….just pointed and questioning.

  20. Translation: You can’t handle a counter argument abnd therefore want to ban the person making it…? From the Hand wringing Mirror are we….big suprise.

    There’s a difference between censorship and whether you’re willing to have certain types of speech in a place that you part-“own”. People have a right to choose whether they think comments are harmful to our image or culture as a blog or to their continued ability to write here without feeling harassed or burnt out.

    If Katie feels like going into details for you she will, but I think she was fair enough in giving you a general warning. Toning it down shouldn’t be very hard given how extreme you’ve been thus far, anyway 🙂

  21. Not just a sexist attitude then, but a racist one to boot. Sexual harassment is not okay – anywhere!

    descrimination baby, they splice it up and call it a million different names… because if all those sould who suffer realise they are facing “discrimination” it may unite them, and we dont want that… when people unite they are powerfull!

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s