Understanding Dildo Baggins
Dildo Baggins sounds like a character from a B Grade movie ‘Fellowship of the Dong’ and there’s been some premature speculation that this is another feminist attack on the male integrity of New Zealand.
The name has been attributed to New Zealand MP Steven Joyce, after he was caught on the chin by a flying pink dildo during a political protest at Waitangi. Waitangi, in the province of Northland, the location of the signing of The Treaty of Waitangi – Tiriti o Waitangi (over 170 years ago) has often been the centre of political discord, on what is New Zealand’s national day.
The tribes of Northland, which host the Maori Parliament, have never concluded a settlement of grievances post treaty like most other regions, and some contend that they never ceded sovereignty of the country. The ‘treaty’ in that respect has been a state of siege and a great source of resentment to some Maori.
The contentious issue that plagued the Waitangi celebrations this year, the signing of the TPPA (Trans Pacific Partnership Agreement – a trade treaty which was recorded with equal hostility in some foreign papers as seizure and pillage of 40% of world trade) is viewed by many New Zealander’s with equal suspicion and hostility.
The case in question where the offending woman, Josie Butler, launched said dildo, ‘claimed rape of sovereignty’ not as some might suggest, that the minister was a rapist.
Added to this, is New Zealand Prime Minister John Key’s refusal to attend the Waitangi Celebrations as the Prime Minister normally does, after a war of words over the TPPA. Steven Joyce (often referred to as the Prime Minister’s baggage man and who gets the clean up jobs) went to Waitangi to front a press conference prior to the Waitangi Celebrations. (Given what transpired you can understand the man’s concern about being subject to a gagging order.)
Dildo Baggins (as carrier of the ring/trouble) is one of the best one liners we’ve seen in politics for a long time, and must be a contender for quote of the year (2016).
That’s politics – not a gender attack.
But here’s where we come to the sticking point. How do we treat people who launch any form of political attack?
This woman, was arrested, and later released without charge. It’s unknown at this point whether she received her weapon back, following the assault, on the minister.
But compare this to another recent case where protesters undertook an occupation of the Far North Airport in Kaitaia. One of the men arrested was charged with trespass but refuses to appear in court and is subject to a warrant to arrest.
“A beneficiary with an arrest warrant for criminal matters that hasn’t been cleared 28 days after its issue will get a letter giving 10 working days to clear it. If the warrant is not cleared within 10 working days their payments will be affected.”
This has led to the offender’s superannuation and war pension being suspended and a war veteran is without income.
Eighty-eight-year-old MÄÂori war veteran Selwyn Clarke has been begging for money at Kaitaia markets after his pension was cut just before Christmas.
(Joyce is not the Minister for Social Development)
Was there insistence from the Minister in this case that this woman not be charged – political convenience?
Is this a White Knight situation – that a women not be charged?
Should the Police have upheld the rule of law and charged this woman (who probably also would not have shown up in court) in the same manner they did the man at the Far North airport, and left it to the courts to decide?
Was Josie Butler a beneficiary?
Are these people protestors or criminal offenders?
Is there a harsher standard applied to male political protesters than female political protestors?
Perhaps the question that we should be asking is: Do women have more liberty to protest than men, with the expectation of lessor consequences?
Sadly downunder you also are making light of an assault on a male. And you are doing so by way of commenting on an existing post by making a new post rather than adding comments to the existing one, for whatever reason.
Sure, Ms Butler’s justification for throwing the dildo did not mean she alleged Joyce had raped a woman sexually, but when someone is accused of raping that means they are being accused of being a rapist. The silly extension of the term ‘rape’ to refer to behaviour that has nothing to do with rape is an issue worthy of consideration.
Comment by Ministry of Men's Affairs — Sat 6th February 2016 @ 8:40 am
There is a previous post here, by Ministry of Men’s Affairs which looks at same incident from a different perspective.
I wouldn’t like to see this in one post, that would be too confusing.
As a rule, I would agree, we don’t need competing posts. If two posts from the same incident canvas different perspectives or target different audiences, they are complementary not competing, and that should be encouraged as much as comments to any post.
Comment by Downunder — Sat 6th February 2016 @ 8:55 am
The term ‘Rape and Pillage’ does not make every soldier or a whole country rapists.
It is only fair to look at this in the context in which some people in our country view this.
That can also be the difference between ‘gender issues’ and men’s issues.
Sorry if you’ve taken offence.
Comment by Downunder — Sat 6th February 2016 @ 9:01 am
What would have been the reaction IF it were a male who had thrown the dildo at a female? I suspect the person would be charged with assault with a weapon by the Police especially if the incident were caught on camera. The feminists would be outraged and crying for the perpetrator to be prosecuted.
The feminists would also be complaining that the dildo is symbolic of male oppression and female servitude and that by throwing a dildo at the female, the male is trying to belittle and subjugate the victim.
Double standards is all I can see. The woman who threw the dildo should have been charged especially considering the person she threw the dildo at is an elected member of the NZ Parliament.
What is next? can we throw anything we like at anyone we choose or are there consequences?
There are consequences if you are male, this is a double standard that is blindly ignored by media and the NZ Police. I can be assaulted by my ex wife and the Police would decline to prosecute, yet any allegation of assault by my ex wife is rigorously investigated.
These political correct views are rampant and the male is always the instigator, violator, assaulter until proven otherwise.This is in direct conflict with the bill of rights.
NZ Police you are a bunch of pussies.
Comment by Colin & Co — Sat 6th February 2016 @ 11:39 am
Hmmm, so if Judith Collins hadn’t fallen from grace and had gone to Waitangi instead of Joyce, would the woman still have thrown the object at Collins?
I think it’s only fair to ask, what the object represented?
To be fair there is a question as to whether a replica penis is actually a dildo, which is a substitute for an erect penis.
The penis has significant historical perspective.
Let’s not assume that this woman was a feminist attacking a man, and that she didn’t understand the sovereign defence of preservation of reproductive rights.
That could be alienating a woman who might be sympathetic to our causes.
Comment by Downunder — Sat 6th February 2016 @ 12:21 pm
She should be strung up, but another note: In NZ if someone doesn’t make a formal complaint she can’t be charged, if the MP requested for no charge then the Police have their hands tied. But I’m pretty sure the MP, The Police, or a Member of the Public can make the complaint. But does this mean anyone that is offended? Say me when I read it on the news etc?
Comment by too tired — Sun 7th February 2016 @ 1:01 am
I don’t agree with you on your Police complaint theory.
The Police can arrest and charge without a complaint – provided they have the required evidence.
But if the then defendant pleads not guilty the Minister would become a witness.
Comment by Downunder — Sun 7th February 2016 @ 6:25 am
Waitangi 2004
We’ve advanced, we’ve progressed from mud.
Comment by Downunder — Sun 7th February 2016 @ 6:50 am
This story rises to political farce when John Key stages a Media conference and holds the protestor to account for destroying the country’s image through the international media.
“It’s appalling” he said.
But the Media was at fault when the story of the Pony-Pulling Prime minster hit the international circuit?
Give a dog a bone.
Comment by Downunder — Sun 7th February 2016 @ 1:14 pm
Once again the definition of rape gets stretched even further. It has become an almost meaningless allegation now thanks to feminists.
As we know the vast majority of feminists operate on the principle that an allegation of rape against a man equates to being guilty. Hence the Minister is indeed a rapist by feminist logic.
One other note. You referred to Waitangi Day as New Zealand’s national day. When in fact it is not New Zealand’s national day. Decades of protests have sufficiently alienated the majority of the population from feeling that it is their national day. However that is not a uniquely male issue so I’ll drop the topic.
Comment by Vman — Tue 9th February 2016 @ 5:09 pm
Source:
Comment by Downunder — Wed 10th February 2016 @ 2:38 pm
Another assault on a Male MP.
Comment by Anon — Thu 14th March 2019 @ 12:59 pm
In respect of the last question there; If men don’t have a voice then yes there is likely to be a scrap but possibly it’s a case of ‘you get our children to attack us, we’ll attack you.’
Comment by Evan Myers — Thu 14th March 2019 @ 3:26 pm
James Shaw attacked.
Better not say too much about this one or I might get in trouble with MoMA again.
Comment by Downunder — Thu 14th March 2019 @ 3:31 pm
Have to admit.
That’s a slightly funny part of our history.
I went looking for a book about my mothers family history.
My history as well of thousands of others.
But I couldn’t find it, so by memory.
In February 1841 my ancestors arrived here.
John and Mary.
They came from the poor house, to a promise.
Of land ownership, employment, freedom.
So in Nelson arrived, aboard the Olympus.
But navigation was poor.
And the weather wild.
The risk was real, the ship would be lost.
So out came the natives.
Who in bravery went to them.
Guiding them to safety.
Why then did they rescue.
Could they not see what would be lost.
The loss of many things we grieve today.
I say not, the brave men were blind.
But saw fate, and embraced it.
That the Pakeha, and Maori made a deal.
So they got land, and built a mud hut.
The land marginal, today abandoned.
But started the life of the settler.
And made good with there freedom.
Gathering assets, like livestock.
And starting business.
Eventually there was marriage.
And children together.
These two races together.
Just as I grew up in army camp schools.
The children of both, played blind to race.
As parents, stood guard in our defence, together.
Is that not what they saw.
They new land, culture was being lost.
But rescued what could be lost.
People they had never met.
But a principal.
A partnership.
While we struggle with our errors.
Walk wrong paths.
Label each other, as this or that.
Contemplate, debating our future.
Our children play.
And I see them leave the shore.
They go to rescue, there brother, and sister.
There niece, and nephew.
The promise of better things.
That we have good paths.
And good things.
As we suffer together, hardship.
Comment by DJ Ward — Sat 6th February 2021 @ 9:45 am
Yesterday my family went to see rockets being launched.
My partner said it was boring as there was not enough action.
But I know the kids enjoyed the afternoon.
I went backstage, and witnessed reading of data.
The rocket got to 370m/s and just short of 20,000 feet.
Amazing to watch, and hear it, break the sound barrier.
The final rocket, the largest, called Nike.
Destroyed itself shortly after liftoff.
The crowd gasped, and I felt them all take a step back.
But it was still wonderful to watch.
I have read many things about the treaty lately.
So I ask myself, where did we go wrong.
For so much, negative things to be written.
What was missing.
It was not parliament as that is inherent.
And we can all participate.
Even I could not vote, in the original versions.
It may not be equality, but there is representation.
To me it was the governor role.
The yes or no person to parliament.
Maori had no representation.
That was our mistake.
So I see the need for change.
That Maori have a seat above parliament.
With the same role as the Governor General.
A small upper house.
Who can return laws to parliament.
Who can demand answers.
Who can examine disputes.
Who can give clemency.
Such a thing is possible.
As the role exists already.
But we had a deal.
A partnership.
Pakeha got the Governor General.
Maori got nothing.
The voice relegated to parliament.
As a minority, without the treaty’s intent.
Even children built little rockets.
And virtually all went well.
And even the adult ones.
Amazed and worked.
The most ambitious failed.
A whole team of people.
Working for one cause.
But the crowd new the truth.
To have great things.
There will be mistakes.
And they will have to build a new one.
But the crowd will stand and watch again.
In effect the Governor General is our sovereign.
And they ask for the deal to be honest.
The people with parliament, with power over the sovereign.
And the sovereign, with power over parliament.
Protecting the land and all its people.
Watching over them.
Comment by DJ Ward — Mon 8th February 2021 @ 7:50 am
#15 has a mistake.
Her name was Anne, not Mary.
But the first child, was a daughter called Mary.
I have been thinking, about how to get land ownership back.
KiwiSaver, is a good example.
Each identifiable group, can have there own.
So they contribute, until they have enough invested.
Then they buy land, as going concerns.
Slowly but certainly, a corporate company is created.
With significant holdings, of land they wanted back.
Even if they could easily join, and only asked for 1%.
In time, even if it’s a long time.
What was once lost, can be gained.
Obviously because of amounts of fraud, back in the days.
I think in slang, it’s called a kick starter.
Comment by DJ Ward — Thu 3rd February 2022 @ 9:01 pm