- - - - - - - - - - - - -

Wednesday, November 06, 2013

Andrew Fagan: rape apologist extraordinaire

The anger and despair at the 'roast busters' rape club scandal is not just the actions of the rapists, the rage comes because the NZ Police gave it the green light.  The feelings of rage have gone on - and will continue - until it is resolved. The tension from the lack of resolution is because the NZ Police are covering for these young rapists.  The reason for that is because the NZ Police are largely composed of arrogant, unintelligent, bullying types of men and these young rapists are the sons of policemen or are aspiring policemen.

What distresses people so much is not that the police say they are powerless to intervene, but that they refuse to.  What distresses people is that every day this goes unresolved is another day of empowering and comforting and encouraging other young men to form their own rape clubs.  What distresses people is that the police have told the young rapists it is OK to rape and that it isn't really rape anyway.  This is what is so terribly upsetting.   All the rape apologists have slithered out into the open now they are armed with what they presume is an official sanction for their mentality by the NZ Police.

There has been a shit-storm of controversy over the way Willie and JT at Radio Live handled a caller to their show who identified herself as a friend of one of the victims.  Listening to Radio Live last night however I heard the most creepy, disturbing things from Karen Hay's co-host, Andrew Fagan.
Listen for yourself (go to Tuesday November 5th, from 20:15 onwards) it gets truly ghastly - a radio nasty.  Listening last night was like being trapped in the mind of a rapist.    I certainly hope Mr Peacock from RNZ's Mediawatch programme spares a few minutes to listen to this.  I hope the BSA does too if it gets that far.

Fagan just did not relent, he didn't get it - not at all - when a rape victim rang up with her tragic story of being raped as a 14 year old.  All he was interested in was if she had alcohol - and if she did then too bad for her.  "Was it consensual?" he retorted.  "Didn't you hear me?" she said in flummoxed exasperation and shock.  And so it went on like this: a re-traumatisation of a rape victim live on air.  What a pig.  The dead air of several incredibly long seconds where any normal person would have expressed empathy was stomach-churning.  ... "right?" she said to break the silence, expecting - as any rape victim would - for a word or murmur of compassion... dead air.  Creepiest thing I've heard on radio was that silence.  At one stage she pleaded just to talk to Karen he was so appalling. 

At the end of the show he was made to agree (by way of a concession more than anything else) with the statement that this sort of rape - of older, sober men by way of stupefying younger, underage girls - is "morally wrong".  "Morally" being the word he emphasised, like it was the same class of "morally" as having an affair or something a bit naughty, but not really a big issue.  The only thought at this point was how many young girls has Andrew Fagan raped in his time?


Once again in parliamentary question time this afternoon it was left to a well-meaning Green MP to attempt to hold the government to account. Labour wasn't going to.  And, again, unfortunately Jan Logie was debating technicalities of law reform with the Minister of Justice instead of dealing with the actual issue here - asking the Minister of Police what the fuck the Waitemata police under Det Insp Bruce Scott was doing acting as the patrons of rape club by allowing them to continue and keeping their victimisations online.  Opportunity wasted.   One layer of gutless cowards after another are protecting gang rapists.  The system is broken and the people in charge don't want to fix it, or don't think they can fix it.  The rest of them don't even think it's broken.  This is a very sad time.


At 6/11/13 6:40 pm, Blogger jack said...

You tell `em Tim!

At 6/11/13 8:26 pm, Anonymous Anonymous said...

It's extraordinarily rare that I agree with anything on Tumeke, but I'm with you on this one. The age of consent exists to protect young people from predatory creeps. Statutory rape is a crime. That the police and so many in the media are acting as if it isn't sends a chill down my spine.

At 7/11/13 7:36 pm, Anonymous Rex Widerstrom said...

The difficulty, Anonymous (@ 6/11/13), I have with your statement is that in focusing on age of consent laws and thus conflating hebophilia (attraction to teens 12-16 years old) and rape.

The police tend to jump for joy when confronted by an allegation than an older male had sex with a female under 16. No need for messy issues like consent or maturity to be brought into, provided they can prove sex took place - and sometimes even when they can't - there's a slam-dunk conviction waiting to be had.

In reality there are a vast selection of other people who need to be protected from predators, including drunk women of any age, though with subnormal IQs, and, frankly, those with poor judgement and/or impulse control. None of these things should make you fair game for a man with predatory intentions.

But once you remove that nice, neat, and entirely artificial dividing line of the age of the victim, things get very much harder to investigate and to prove.

Hence - as we seem to be seeing here - the Police are wont to take a "too murky, move on" approach. They go after the low-hanging fruit, in other words.

That's not an acceptable response as far as I'm concerned. It creates an injustice for the victims whose rapes go unpunished, and for the handful of men wrongfully convicted on the say-so of an impressionable and manipulable child.

We deserve a better policing and justice system than has been on display in the past few days. But I doubt this case, appalling as it is, will bring that about because the synergy between the police hierarchy - eager for a public to believe crime is out of control but at the same time eager for artificially high clearance rates - and our politicians - adept at feeding on fear of crime by auctioning ever-tougher "law n order" policies come election - is too strong.

At 7/11/13 9:41 pm, Blogger Unknown said...

I think it is called rape when proved so by a Court, rather than a hysterical . The police warning to Martyyn was appropriate.

At 11/11/13 10:31 am, Anonymous Karyn Hay said...

"The only thought at this point was how many young girls has Andrew Fagan raped in his time?"
Whatever your opinion on Andrew's handling of this caller, which was inept to put it mildly,this slur on his character is disgusting and outrageous and hurtful to my family, and one which I have sought legal action regarding.I would like you to publish my comments, given you feel it appropriate to publish your own. Being in the studio with him and being privy to what was said, the truth of the matter is that he simply did not hear what she said beforehand because we had been having an argument between ourselves. The truth, plain and simple, and absolutely no excuse for how the call progressed. There has been some very good work done in the media over the last week to allow victims to come forward, to change attitudes within the 'system' and for families to start talking about the wider issues, and we will both continue to do that. Karyn Hay

At 11/11/13 8:31 pm, Blogger Unknown said...

It does always seem to be Green Party MPs that are the only ones who stand up for anything socially responsible in this country.
Why is Radio Live such a gross station?

At 11/11/13 8:33 pm, Blogger Unknown said...

I'm going to repeat this comment someone else made because it can't be said enough. "The age of consent exists to protect young people from predatory creeps. Statutory rape is a crime. That the police and so many in the media are acting as if it isn't sends a chill down my spin."

At 11/11/13 8:35 pm, Anonymous Anonymous said...

No I don't agree at all that that slur on the character of Andrew was uncalled for. If that is his attitude then it's completely logical to believe he has raped. Even when a woman just told him she didn't consent he asked her if she consented. He clearly has a problem.

At 15/11/13 1:18 pm, Blogger Tim Selwyn said...

Karyn, Thank you for responding and describing the context in which the conversation occurred. I thought hard about my comment, but after hearing the entire programme - as I did that night - that was the question that came to mind. I am glad you have refuted it. Please note my intention in raising this was not malicious. I consider there would be grounds for a BSA complaint, but I have not taken this up and nor have I launched a campaign to drive away advertisers etc. as others have done. Andrew seems to be very much a contrarian, an anarchist - and from time to time we have to accept that sort of personality may go over the mark. They should not have to suffer forever for it. It is not my intention to take such free spirits off the air when they make mistakes. I am heartened by his very sober apology.


Post a Comment

<< Home