In a joint statement, Christchurch Mayor Lianne Dalziel and Christchurch City Council chief executive Karleen Edwards expressed sadness at the loss of “a stand-out leader for our city and region”.
Yet one of these women was part of the Clark government that was responsible for much of the feminist excess that has made New Zealand unsafe for males and has now given rise to the resignation of the man she is lauding, Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Authority boss Roger Sutton. Although we don’t know the full story, a female colleague made a formal complaint against him for sexual harassment that he claims was his normal behaviour to most people and consisted of hugs, ‘inappropriate’ jokes and comments and calling women ‘honey’ and ‘sweetie’.
Feminism has convinced women that they have a right to be protected from feeling uncomfortable or offended, and if they do feel those things it’s never their responsibility but someone else’s. Feminism has convinced women that they have the right to determine how men should behave and what men’s morality should be, but never the converse. Feminism has convinced women they have the right to decide what is ‘appropriate’ and ‘inappropriate’ and to rule much normal male behaviour as ‘inappropriate’. Under feminist lobbying the concept of harassment has been broadened to ridiculous yet poorly-defined extremes, making it available as a convenient weapon in the war against men.
Roger Sutton sacrificed a significant amount of salary to serve the Christchurch community in dealing with its crisis, and he has been almost universally praised and appreciated because his talents have enabled him to do the job unusually well. His positive, compassionate, informal, somewhat irreverent personality contributed to this. The Christchurch recovery effort has now lost him.
His response has been clever. He resigned, admitting his behaviour by describing it in sufficient detail to highlight the silliness of the complaint but speaking almost as if he had committed an heinous crime against humanity. He apologized for ‘hurting’ people. This was the response of a good loser, probably disingenuous but done well. The effect will be that most people will see him as having been treated unfairly and stupidly by the complaint and by the system that dealt with it. A fascinating example of P.R.
The truth may well be that he can no longer be bothered continuing his hard, talented and effective work for the Christchurch recovery and his kind and supportive treatment of his staff, when the system he works under allows him to get kicked in the teeth for his efforts.
Does anyone know the name of the woman who complained? It’s time she fronted up and told her side of the story. Depending on what that is, it may be time she heard some sensible comment about the feminist ideology that motivated her malicious actions. She has damaged the recovery effort for Christchurch, something perhaps a tad more important than her own self-centred indignation. To be fair, a larger part of the blame should be directed towards the relevant laws and processes that have developed from flawed feminist ideology and its lobbyists, and we can only hope that this sad saga leads to changes.