USA: Election breakthrough for a Seattle socialist

kshama sawant

Chris Mobley reports from Seattle where a revolutionary socialist challenger for a seat on the City Council has surged into a narrow lead. Reprinted from SocialistWorker.org

SOCIALIST ALTERNATIVE candidate Kshama Sawant had a narrow lead over four-term incumbent Democrat Richard Conlin in an election for a seat on the Seattle City Council, as of November 13–a stunning result for a revolutionary socialist and a powerful symbol of the discontent with the political status quo.

Washington state votes by mail, and a majority of ballots typically come in after Election Day, since votes are accepted as long as they were postmarked by that day. As of the end of Wednesday, Sawant was ahead by 402 votes, with some 13,000 ballots still to be counted, according to the latest announcement from election officials.

The results could still turn against Sawant, but momentum is on her side–she has had the edge in each round of counting in the days since Election Day on November 5, helping her to overcome what appeared to be a narrow defeat based on where the vote count stood on election night.

Even while trailing on election night, however, it was clear that Sawant and Socialist Alternative candidate Ty Moore, who lost by just 229 votes in an election for city council in Minneapolis, have scored breakthroughs. Well before Election Day, Danny Westneat, a columnist for the mainstream Seattle Times daily newspaper, summed up the electrifying impact of these campaigns: “The election isn’t for 10 days, but we can already declare the big winner in Seattle. It’s the socialist.”

Westneat pointed out that Sawant was responsible for Democrats like Seattle Mayor Mike McGinn and his victorious challenger in last week’s election, Ed Murray, suddenly declaring their support for left-wing initiatives such as the Fight for 15 organizing drive for low-wage workers. As Westneat concluded:

You can’t look at the stagnant pay, declining benefits and third-world levels of income disparity in recent years and conclude this system is working. For Millennials as a group, it has been a disaster. Out of the wreckage, left-wing or socialist economic ideas, such as the “livable wage” movement in which government would seek to mandate a form of economic security, are flowering.

Sawant’s edge in the late-arriving ballots is another indicator of the grassroots energy that made her campaign stand out, as David Goldstein, writing in The Stranger, an alternative weekly newspaper, explained:

Part of [the reason Sawant is winning in each day of counting after Election Day has] to do with demographics; younger voters tend to vote late and more lefty. Part of it has to do with hard work; Sawant’s impressive grassroots campaign had a couple hundred volunteers calling voters and knocking on doors to get out her vote, while Conlin had little ground game at all. And part of it has to do with momentum; voter preferences shift over time, and her surprisingly strong campaign clearly moved support in Sawant’s favor.

The final vote totals are scheduled to be certified on November 26, but the uncertainty could go on longer with the possibility of a recount if the margin of victory remains closer than 0.5 percent and 2,000 votes.

– – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –

THE SUCCESS of the Socialist Alternative campaigns is directly connected to their roots in grassroots struggles.

In Minneapolis, Ty Moore made the Occupy MN Homes movement–with its call for a moratorium on foreclosures and a ban on police carrying out evictions–central to his campaign for a city council seat representing an area under assault by gentrification.

In Seattle, Sawant, an economics professor and respected activist, focused on several key issues to galvanize support from working people and the left. Building on the energy of the national Fight for 15 campaign to organize low-wage workers in restaurant and retail, Sawant positioned herself as the candidate who supported a living wage for all.

The popularity of the Fight for 15 demand was dramatized in SeaTac, a Seattle suburb where the regional airport is located. A union-backed ballot measure–bitterly opposed by business interests–that would mandate a $15-an-hour minimum wage for airport and hotel workers was winning as of November 13, though by only 19 votes at the latest count.

Sawant also focused on proposals for rent control in a city where rents have risen by 6 percent in just the last year alone, on top of increases year after year, according to Reis, which compiles and sells data to the commercial real-estate industry.

She also advocated for a tax on millionaires, in a state with no income tax, to fund mass transit and other infrastructure improvements. This call is especially timely with the local public transit agency, King County Metro, planning to cut bus service by as much as 20 percent next year.

Gaining the endorsements of several unions and social justice organizations, as well support from prominent local activists, the campaign was able to mobilize several hundred volunteers, who covered the city with distinctive “Vote Sawant” posters. Though far outspent by her opponent, Sawant did raise more than $100,000, mainly from small contributions.

– – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –

SAWANT AND those who worked for her ran an effective campaign, but her success is the result of tapping into voter discontent with the political status quo, particularly in a liberal city like Seattle.

According a recent Gallup poll, Democrats and Republicans have reached an all-time low in public opinion–only 26 percent of Americans believe the two mainstream parties do “an adequate job of representing the American people.” Some 60 percent said there was a need for a third major party.

In Seattle, where the Democrats predominate, this discontent translated into heavy press interest in Sawant. She won an endorsement from The Stranger before her strong showing in the August primary election–the alt-weekly wrote in an article headlined “The Case for Kshama Sawant”: “Sawant offers voters a detailed policy agenda, backed up by a coherent economic critique and a sound strategy for moving the political debate in a leftward direction.”

After coming in a close second in August, Sawant continued to pick up broad support, including a small group of “Democrats for Sawant”–a stark symbol of the bitterness with the incumbent Conlin, who has a long record of pandering to business interests. Sawant won backing from local hip-hop artists and several prominent local activists, notably left-wing journalist Geov Parrish. Sawant also got support from immigrant political organizations, including the Somali American Public Affairs Council. In the final weeks of the campaign, volunteers made a push to hold “100 rallies for Sawant.”

As a socialist challenger in a liberal city against a Democratic opponent, Sawant was able to avoid one of the key difficulties that third party candidates typically face: the so-called “spoiler effect.” Without a Republican in the election, the Democrat Conlin wasn’t able to browbeat his party’s much more liberal base into supporting him as a “lesser evil.”

Now, Sawant stands a good chance of taking a seat for four years on the nine-member City Council. This will open up a new opportunity for the left–both Sawant and Moore pledged that they would use the resources of their offices to assist grassroots struggles involving workers, the oppressed, immigrants and the community.

There will be more days of vote-counting to come, but the Sawant campaign has already accomplished an enormous amount by proving that there is a thirst for an alternative to the status quo–and that socialists can confidently put forward a different vision for society, knowing it will connect with the aspirations of more and more people.

See also:

Some questions regarding rape culture in Aotearoa/NZ

stop rape culture wellington kassie

This article was sent to Fightback by Bevan Morgan.

This week has not been a particularly pleasant time to live in Aotearoa.  The revelation by TV3 that there has been a youth gang working at intoxicating and raping young girls and then bragging about it on the internet obviously sent some major shock waves through the country.  Understandably many queries have been raised about the nature of the way the report was dealt with, and of course with the reaction, or rather lack thereof, within the New Zealand Police.  Inevitably though, one of the major questions that have arisen has been regarding the idea of a rape culture in this country, and whether or not we have one in New Zealand.

The responses from both the public and the media have been illuminating to say the least, and if there was any doubt that we had a problem with both the level of sexual assault in this country, and how it is perceived within the community, there certainly is absolutely zero doubt now.  There have been some heated discussions, plenty of victim blaming, and the rise of more amateur Batman wannabes than in Kick-Ass 2.   But one of the most contentious points has been on whether or not in New Zealand we have a ‘rape culture’,  to which multiple people have screamed that this is not the case, and that these young guys are an anomaly to how we as a society view the larger question of rape and sexual assault.  Most of this defence stems from misunderstanding s of what a culture of rape and sexual assault might look like (outside of the Catholic Church or within Gang Culture for example), and is unhelpfully argued down with the simple and obvious assertion that most men aren’t rapists.

This is not an okay place to be having such an important discussion stem from.  Too often people get distracted by discussions of rape culture to understand the nuances and the human picture of the suffering.  There have been an astonishing number of men getting on the defensive and the offensive this week, as if a group of sex crazed date rapists sexually assaulting girls as young as 13 is a personal slight on them individually.  It is not.  However, we still need to look deep inside ourselves as a society, and have a serious examination of how economic factors, cultural factors, social factors, and religious factors (amongst others) taint our perceptions of sexual assault in this country.  Here are just four questions that might help people reconsider their perception of sexual abuse in New Zealand, and are important to keep in mind as we move forward to a future where instead of burying our heads in the sand, we tackle these problems head on.

Why is it normal that when girls go to bars that they can’t leave their drink unattended?

If we didn’t have a culture of rape, this wouldn’t be the case.  If the statistics were right on this matter then we would have just a few instances of girls having their drinks spiked and it wouldn’t be like the current status quo where drink spiking is a problem in nearly every bar or nightclub, every single weekend.

Men, please just picture that for a second. Imagine if every time you went out, and you took your eyes off your drink, you had to worry about whether or not somebody had drugged it with something to make you pass out so you can be sexually violated.   If this was the case, you can guarantee that men would be armed, and police presence would be heavy handed.  But with our females we just accept this and warn our girls as if this is okay – as if the rapist should be just simply something to avoid in the evening like the rain, or overpriced drinks.

And here is the kicker on that point anyway – as much as drink spiking is a serious problem, we have an even bigger elephant standing in the room.   The fact of the matter is that in 2008, alcohol was the date rape drug of choice in 80% of sexual assaults in New Zealand anyway.  This is in a country where alcohol is so ingrained into our psyche that we actually let alcohol companies sponsor children’s sports clubs amongst other things.  So girls in many ways are damned if they do, and damned if they don’t.  They can go out with the peers in what is the generally accepted ‘normal’ social setting in New Zealand, and risk either having someone slip something in their drink, or have someone take advantage of them if they get too drunk.  And for those who like to take the holier than thou road and say ‘don’t get that drunk’, let us remind you that getting drunk is NOT an offence that deserves a punishment of sexual assault.  This is not how a society treats its women in 2013.

Why is rape so underreported in this country?

On the surface there is false authority in the idea that rape and sexual assault isn’t that bad in New Zealand, because the figures show that it’s not an epidemic yet.  This is one of the most sinister and depressing aspects of a culture of rape.  It implies that because we don’t know for a fact the full figures that we can take a blissfully ignorant approach, and in the interests of ‘objectivity’ and ‘rationality’ we can’t do anything else, because the data isn’t there.  And this, again just patently is not true.

The Invercargill Rape and Abuse Support Centre claimed this year that while there were only 98 reported rapes in the region between January 2011 and April 2013, their centre took on about fifteen new clients a month during this time.  In 2007 it was found by Rape Prevention Education that sexual assault was being reported about 13% of the time, and that of these reports, roughly 9% resulted in convictions.

That means that we can probably extrapolate and estimate that in the fiscal year of 2012-2013 when there were approximately 8.2 reported sexual assaults per 10,000 people in New Zealand, there was probably more like 56 per 10,000 at least.  Doesn’t sound like much?  Well we’ll keep extrapolating.   If our population is four million, that equates to well over 20,000 sexual assaults in the space of a fiscal year that we can guess at.  8.2 instances of sexual assault per 10,000 is a problem, however if this does only represent 13% of actual cases then we have a full blown catastrophe on our hands.

Why is our history of sexual oppression and rape forgotten?

The whole concept of sexual assault being seen as hideous is relatively new in the history of patriarchal class societies.  The Ten Commandments are orders from God on how to act on this planet and many people still believe in these.  Jealousy of your neighbour warrants a mention, but there is nothing to do with sexual assault whatsoever – in other words according to God it is worse to be annoyed that your neighbour drives a BMW than it is to sexual assault one of their children.

Or how about the countless, countless stories of war atrocities where rape was served up as the first thing on the agenda for maniacal soldiers?  We need to understand that by and large in the history of patriarchal class societies, this whole conception of ‘consent’ is actually pretty new and we still haven’t cracked it yet completely.  It was only in 1985 – not even thirty years ago – that it was made illegal to rape someone within a marriage.  That means we have for less than thirty years had mainstream acceptance that within marriage, the parties involved still need to consent.  What was once considered a good night of sex and fighting might be now considered a night of rape and assault, because our values and perceptions change as we become more enlightened, and we evolve socially.  While we have made ground in combatting these things it cannot be forgotten that by and large, throughout class societies, rape and sexual assault have not been seen as particularly bad under the law.

Why the hell are we pretending that this is only a wild youth problem?  

The talkback stations have been waiting for a story like this in New Zealand, and with typical vigour and aggressiveness, they have jumped on this story, and there have been calls from both listeners and DJs that this is an on-going issue and that teenagers are out of control.  But this just isn’t true.  Teenagers today smoke less, drink less, and drive safer than the generations that preceded them.  But because the concept of sexual assault is relatively new, and because we have hid the problem out of sight and out of mind for so long, we just assume that because we hear more about it now, then it must be simply that the youth are wild.

We also know definitively that poverty, abuse, and trauma lead to drug use and alcohol dependence hugely and we know that presently in New Zealand we have abhorrent child poverty statistics whereby over 200,000 young New Zealanders live below the poverty line.  So if our economic system is increasing inequality in New Zealand (which it is), and thus some children out of desperation are acting ‘bad’ as the statistics have predicted time and time again they will, how can we possibly even begin to frame this discussion as a problem with delinquent youths only?  Why are the people who make these living situations possible (i.e. the financial thieves, the politicians, the police, the ruling oligarchy) not receiving the same visceral anger and disrespect that our youth are facing?  We are on track to have the smartest, most orderly generation yet, however they are still targeted because their voices don’t count.

Additionally, sexual violence is a problem throughout all age groups, throughout all classes. The Roastbusters were sons of a police officer and a Hollywood actor. To blame youth, or working class hedonism, rather than considering the inherent problems with how we structure our very society is pig ignorant, and downright cruel.   The ideas of rape culture are handed down from above, and they don’t just apparate out of nowhere – they are crafted unintentionally a lot of the time and then passed down implicitly through social cues and interactions.  Our youth aren’t the problem.  Our adults are.

***

There are multiple factions of the left each with their own philosophies and explanations for why things have gotten to this stage.  Radical feminists may disagree with Socialists, who may in turn disagree with Anarchists and so on and so forth.  But this is window dressing.  The idea of looking at rape culture does not have to be an accusation that all men are rapists, and that all men are designed to rape.  It is bigger than a philosophy, or who is right and who is wrong on this issue.  We live in a society where there is a massive inequity between men and women (this isn’t even touching on assault for our non gender-binary comrades) in which we can make serious long term transitions to combat this problem.  There is no Band-Aid, so the National party will be shit out of luck in trying to wait for this problem to blow over.

This is a delicate issue that we must treat with the utmost care and respect.  But something must be done.  Rape and sexual assault cannot be a secret in Aotearoa anymore and we must question the very foundations of how we perceive sexual assault in order to move forward to a future where reporting isn’t a case of being brave and admirable as much as it is just what you do.

Philippines’ Typhoon Haiyan crisis: For climate justice now! Fight, don’t be afraid! Makibaka! Huwag Matakot!

Statement by the Partido Lakas ng Masa (Party of the Labouring Masses, PLM). Reprinted from Links: International Journal of Socialist Renewal.

November 10, 2013 — Partido Lakas ng Masa — The people are still reeling from the impacts of possibly the biggest typhoon to strike the country. Death toll numbers are rising rapidly. There is massive devastation. Many are still trying to contact their relatives, friends and comrades, but communication systems are down, in the hardest hit areas. How should we, as socialists, respond to the crisis?

First, we have to support and take whatever measures are necessary to protect the people. This means all measures that bring the people immediate relief. In the hardest hit city of Tacloban, in South Eastern Visayas, the people are already taking what food and relief supplies that they need from the malls. The media reports this as looting and the break-down of law and order.

But we say: let our people live. This is not “looting”. People are taking food, where they can get it, in order to survive. If there is no timely and organised support system from government, people just have to do it themselves and they should organise themselves to do it more effectively. Even some grocery owners understand the need for this. According to one report of a man who broke into a grocery store, “The owner said we can take the food, but not the dried goods. Our situation is so dismal. We have deaths in our family. We need to save our lives. Even money has no use here now.” Where possible, PLM will assist them to organise to take over food supplies and necessary relief goods.

Then there’s the issue of the government response. Our experience has been that it has always been too slow and inadequate. Any efforts are undermined by corruption. The exposure of the organised plunder by the political elite and sections of government, of development funds or “pork barrel” funds meant for the people, is a testimony to this. This outraged the country and brought almost half a million people out in to the streets in a massive show of protest on August 26 this year. While one plunderer has been arrested, the president has not responded decisively to clean up the system.

The public funds plundered by the elite should have been used for preventative measures to support the people weather these disasters: for infrastructure, including better sea walls and communication infrastructure; for early warning systems; for well constructed and therefore safe public housing, to replace huts and shacks built out of dried leaves and cardboard; for health and education; for equipment and personnel for rapid emergency response, and the list is endless. But no, this was not the case, it was eaten up by the greed of the elite classes.

Unfortunately, we have no reason to believe that the government and the system will deliver and meet the needs of the people this time round either. The self-interest of the elite, and their control of the government and the system that is designed to perpetuate their interests, through the plunder of the people’s assets and resources, renders the entire set-up futile in the face of a disaster on this scale.

Then there are our international “allies”, such as the United States government, who have sent us their best wishes. But these “allies”, so-called, are also responsible for the situation faced by our people. These typhoons are part of the climate crisis phenomenon faced by the world today. Super Typhoon Haiyan (referred to as Yolanda in the Philippines) was one of the most intense tropical cyclones at landfall on record when it struck the Philippines on November 7. Its maximum sustained winds at landfall were pegged at 195 mph with gusts above 220 mph. Some meteorologists even proclaimed it to be the strongest tropical cyclone at landfall in recorded history. Haiyan’s strength and the duration of its category 5 intensity — the storm remained at peak category 5 intensity for an incredible 48 straight hours.

The still-increasing greenhouse gas emissions responsible for the climate crisis are disproportionately emitted by the rich and developed countries, from the US, Europe to Australia. For centuries, these rich, developed countries have polluted and plundered our societies, emitting too much greenhouse gases to satisfy their greed for profit. They have built countless destructive projects all over the world, like polluting factories, coal-fired power plants, nuclear power plants and mega dams. They have also pushed for policies allowing extractive industries to practice wasteful and irresponsible extraction of the Earth’s minerals. They continue to wage environmentally destructive wars and equip war industries, for corporate profits. All of this has fast tracked the devastation of the Earth’s ecological system and brought about unprecedented changes in the planet’s climate.

But these are the same rich countries whose political elite are ignoring climate change and the climate crisis. Australia has recently elected a government that denies the very existence of climate change and has refused to send even a junior minister to the climate conference in Warsaw, Poland. The question of climate justice –- for the rich countries to bear the burden of taking the necessary measures for stopping it and to pay reparations and compensate those in poorer countries who are suffering the consequences of it -– is not entertained even in a token way.

The way the rich countries demand debt payments from us, we now demand the payment of their “climate debts”, for climate justice and for them to take every necessary measure to cut back their greenhouse gas emission in the shortest time possible.

These rich “friends and allies”, so-called, have preached to us about our courage and resilience. But as many here have pointed out, resilience is not just taking all the blows with a smiling face. Resilience is fighting back. To be truly resilient we need to organise, to fight back and to take matters in to our own hands, from the relief efforts on the ground to national government and to challenging and putting an end to the capitalist system. This is the only way to ensure that we are truly resilient.

Makibaka, huwag matakot! Fight, don’t be afraid!

Email us at partidolakasngmasa@gmail.com if you can assist in anyway. Donations to those affected can be made via paypal on the Transform Asia website or donations can be sent to:

Transform Asia Gender and Labor Institute
Account No. 304-2-304004562
Swift Code: MBTCPHMM
Metrobank, Anonas Branch Aurora Blvd., Project 4
Quezon City, Metro Manila, Philippines
Email: transform.asia1@gmail.com
Mobile/cell ph no. +63(0)9088877702]

Aotearoa/NZ: Socialist solutions needed to address housing crisis

The following article by CWI reporters in Aotearoa/New Zealand first appeared in the Australian magazine The Socialist.

New Zealand is in the midst of a housing crisis. This crisis was created by decades of neo-liberal policy including the deregulation of housing consent and planning, the sell-off of state housing stock, and the failure to close tax loop-holes. These loop-holes have enabled a thin layer of people to create wealth out of property speculation while others struggle to meet rental payments in substandard housing.

The absence of a capital gains tax has led many investors to see property as a means to make easy profits. This has exacerbated inequality with a smaller number of people owning an increasing number of property assets to the exclusion of others.

An OECD 2011 report on New Zealand noted that: “Wealth is concentrated to a greater extent in property compared to most other OECD countries…Supply rigidities and tax incentives that bias savings decisions towards property investment have amplified the increase in house prices, widening wealth inequalities in the form of larger homes for those who can afford them, but deteriorating affordability for the rest of the population.”

The gaps in the tax system have helped create a boom in the property sector. This has left many young families unable to purchase a home. Between 1991 and 2012 home ownership fell to a 50 year low and is forecast to continue falling.

Since 1991 the government’s main intervention in the housing market has been the provision of the Accommodation Supplement to low income earners. This payment effectively operates as a landlord-subsidy ensuring landlords continue to gain a profit from their property investments. At the same time it sends a message to employers that they do not have to pay a living wage. Since 1991, the growth of this subsidy has been enormous and yet it does nothing to treat the underlying reasons for why housing is unaffordable for so many families.

The privatisation of state housing

In 1991, with the incoming National government, New Zealand saw the “mother of all budgets” which included the selling-off of state housing and the introduction of market rents for state housing.

While the policy of market rents was eventually reversed with the introduction of Income Rent Subsidies, New Zealand continues to live with the legacy of a severely depleted state housing stock. State housing is now seen as only an option for the poorest families – only those classed as “high priority” are placed on waiting lists.

According to the Housing New Zealand Annual Report 2011/2012: “Under the new criteria, only new applicants with high-priority needs are eligible for state rentals, with moderate and low-priority applicants no longer being placed on the waiting list.”

The government has meanwhile earmarked $46.8 million during 2015/16 and 2016/17 for Housing New Zealand to provide additional rent subsidies for those tenants forced to move into market rentals.

The most recent legislation to pass on state housing does nothing to address the housing short fall. Instead it allows private organisations to bid for tenders to provide social housing. This will only make access to affordable housing more difficult. The false idea being pushed is that the ‘market’ is the best mechanism to deliver social services. The truth is it’s an attempt to open new areas of the economy for exploitation.

Recently Housing New Zealand has also been through a process of “reconfiguring its portfolio”. This is code for selling off properties which have increased in value. In Auckland this has occurred most controversially in Glenn Innes under the “The Tamaki Transformation Project”.

Under the plan, Housing New Zealand has been evicting tenants and selling properties which have increased in value. State assets are not immune to the imperative that they deliver a profit, or as Housing New Zealand put it, an “acceptable return to the Crown”.

The Tamaki Redevelopment Company has been formed as a joint Council/Government agency to oversee the development of the remaining properties into one of Auckland’s largest housing projects. Under the plan, houses will be built under public-private partnerships, with a mix of state and market housing. The purpose of the Tamaki Redevelopment Company is to oversee the transfer of assets away from Housing New Zealand and to implement the management of them by private organisations. Essentially this is a stage of further privatising state housing.

Market rents

While the government is intent on pushing more families out of state housing and into market rentals, current laws provide little security for renters. There are very few provisions to address tenure security and housing that meets health standards and the differing mobility requirements of tenants.

The Child Poverty Action Group (CPAG) notes that despite the well-documented relationship between health problems and housing quality, there has been complete neglect from the government on ensuring dwellings meet basic standards.

While the government has committed an additional $102 million over the next four years on housing, none of it will go towards improving rental conditions. Most of this expenditure is needed to cover the increased demand for the Income Rent Subsidy and Accommodation Supplement.

Auckland housing issues even more acute

In Auckland there is an estimated shortfall of 15,000 dwellings and this is expected to worsen. The Auckland City Council is acting at the behest of property developers and is pushing for deregulated zoning and size restrictions so that developers can build more dwellings on less land. While there are increased rules around some visual aspects, such as how developments will fit with the heritage values of an area, they do not address the most serious problems around low-quality unsafe housing.

The Salvation Army’s 2012 report on Auckland housing is damning, not just on the lack of government response to the crisis, but it also points to the governments role in facilitating the crisis through bad legislation that has benefited property speculators and developers above families forced to live in increasingly unaffordable and unhealthy housing.

The report said: “We have developed, supported and nurtured systems that have sustained and even expanded inequality. These systems have allowed some Aucklanders to grow rich through property speculation and have allowed some Aucklanders to develop poor-quality housing that not only leaks, but is ugly and unliveable. These systems have allowed some Aucklanders to occupy larger and larger houses, while other Aucklanders live in more crowded houses and in sheds, garages and caravans. These systems have biased our tax system so that not only are house prices excessively inflated but now higher and higher public subsidies are required for modest-income households to be able to afford any housing”

Socialists fight for immediate reforms to provide some relief to people suffering from housing stress and to address the root causes of the crisis.

We call for:

-Housing to be provided to all as a basic human right -A massive public works program to build thousands of new state homes to wipe out the waiting lists and create much needed construction jobs -Tax reform that will eliminate the ability of speculators to make profits out of housing -The introduction of strict regulation for rental properties that requires all housing to meet standards on liveability, mobility, health and safety – A cap on private rents to limit landlords profiteering

A lasting solution

The commodification of housing is a perversity. We should not have a situation where some profit and others struggle to find a decent affordable place to live. The only way to change this once and for all is to change the profit driven system that creates this scenario. A socialist system based on public ownership, democratic control and sustainable planning would prioritise people’s needs and ensure that the basics of life, like a roof over your head, were provided to all.

Roastbusters, rape culture and the problem of criminality

By Anne Russell. Reprinted from Scoop.co.nz.

Trigger warning: rape, discussion of victim-blaming.

Stop Rape Now Day of Action details here: http://tinyurl.com/md4cn7j

It is, unfortunately, a truism that the older you get, the more of your friends have been raped. Although popular narratives suggest that rape victims are easy to identify, many of these friends will never be known to you. It takes time for the victim to process what has happened, get past the frequent self-blaming and start their healing process. If they then tell someone, by this time the bruise marks have often faded, if there were any to begin with, and admissible legal evidence is sketchy. Even when rape victims actually want their rapists to go to jail, many are put off going to the police by the victim-blaming and retraumatisation that frequently happens during questioning, with only a slim chance of a conviction.

This is not to say that the police are incapable of being good allies to rape survivors, or that victims should never go to the police for help. But anti-rape advocates have known for a long time that the police aren’t often the first port of call for rape survivors. In many cases, the function of the police is to deal with problems that we’re unable or unwilling to fix ourselves. As such, it’s telling that most of the public debate around the Roastbusters group has focused on how the police should deal with the problem.

I say ‘won’t’ rather than ‘can’t’, because these people are middle class adults with state-granted powers of surveillance power at their hands. It wasn’t impossible for the police to dig up internet and telecommunications evidence to use against the Urewera 17, and yet the Roastbusters’ open admissions of rape were not enough for them to even report the page to Facebook. While some suspect that the inaction on Roastbusters is related to the fact that one of them is the son of a cop, this sort of inertia is all too common in police conduct around rape cases. It’s not a coincidence that an institution that frequently upholds misogynist power and violence—as in the rape of Louise Nicholas by police in 1984, not to mention ongoing prison rape statistics—is ill-equipped to understand or dismantle the misogynist power and violence that shapes rape culture.

When asked about the case, John Key expressed disgust and said that the Roastbusters crew needed to “grow up” (as though adults don’t rape). He indicated that the government would be advancing the Harmful Digital Communications Bill in response, wherein posting rape videos online could be interpreted as a crime. This creates a worrying discourse whereby the further extension of surveillance powers is framed as necessary for the safety of young girls—if we oppose the bill we’re supporting rapists and rape culture. Despite such abuses of state power, even committed leftists who otherwise chant “fuck the police” often pressure rape victims to make formal complaints, whether the survivors feel it would aid their recovery or not.

The cultural focus on whether or not the Roastbusters’ acts legally count as rape is part of an attempt to treat them as an anomaly, neatly dividing the world into Evil Rapists and Good Non-Rapists. If the accused rapist is found guilty in a court of law they can be sent to jail, wherein many people view prison rape as a fitting retribution, and we can forget about them—the problem is sitting in a remote cell. If they are not, their friends can keep inviting them to parties without discussing the violence they’ve committed because it’s too awkward.

Unfortunately, the legal system of “innocent until proven guilty” is not particularly helpful when it comes to the problem of rape. Outing a rapist in a public forum almost invariably risks accusations of slander or libel, because there is rarely concrete proof of rape that can be used in a court of law. Yet anti-rape organisations estimate that only around 3% of rape accusations are false—these forming only a small fraction of rapes that are reported at all.

Statistics from the US, similar to those in New Zealand. Source: http://theenlivenproject.com/the-truth-about-false-accusation/

These statistics demonstrate a second truism: that the older you get, the more rapists inhabit your social circles. It would be comforting to think that rapists were only violent psychopaths who we could easily identify and isolate, but there are too many for this to be universally true. Although sometimes spottable by their sleazy remarks, groping, or open rape apologia, many of them blend into social scenes more subtly. Rapists are our workmates, our drinking buddies, our favourite musicians, people at the front of socialist rallies, queer rights advocates, and men who talk about feminism at length. Some of these people are rape victims themselves—how then to dispense justice? Such people cannot be categorised as both waif-like victimsand inhumane monsters.

The narrative of rapist as unrepentant psychopath is undermined when the rapist expresses guilt, or when they genuinely didn’t realise their sexual partner hadn’t consented, or really did desire their partner—since sexual desire and abuse of power are not mutually exclusive. The apology from one of the Roastbusters read: “I just want people to know I am a good person at heart and I have matured and have taken this as a massive learning experience.” While these admissions are often made much of by reporters, as in the similar Steubenville rape case last year, the experiences of survivors are virtually ignored. The apology of the rapist is understood as the endpoint of making amends, rather than the beginning, and survivors who continue to experience trauma or demand further action are dismissed. When they are noticed in the media, survivors are often shamed for not responding or behaving in ways deemed acceptable, as Willie and JT did to a Roastbusters victim on RadioLive. (Trigger warning: victim-blaming, slut-shaming, rape apologia.)

Worryingly, these discourses can prevent rapists from thinking of themselves as rapists, since they have not held their victim at weapon point. Moreover, it implies that any act short of rape is socially and politically irrelevant to the crime. But rape doesn’t come from nowhere, and not all aspects of rape culture are serious enough to merit a jail term. Should the man who I tried to kiss without asking have taken me down to the station for non-consensual conduct? Should I have been charged with aiding and abetting criminals when I made rape jokes at age nineteen, letting rapists in my circle know that what they’d done was not a big deal to me? The problem of rape culture doesn’t only emerge when rapehappens, but in micro-aggressions, poor personal boundaries, and the dreadful anticipation of the act. I didn’t call the police when a man almost succeeded in attacking me on Cuba St at 2am—he was Not A Rapist, though probably only by dint of a few seconds. Nor do I call them every time an acquaintance gropes me or says that my low-cut top means I don’t respect myself. Police do not and cannot always press charges for routine events that form the backdrop of women’s lives.

In this context, the question of whether or not the Roastbusters crew can be legally charged as rapists is irrelevant. Even if the evidence of videos and public bragging didn’t exist, it would still remain clear that these men, and countless of others in this country alone, are misogynists with lax boundaries who are willing to abuse their power. The problem of rape culture is not rooted entirely in misogyny; rape also exists within the queer community, and men can be raped by women. But the cultural centring of cisgendermale perspectives at the expense of women and trans* people forms a lot of ground for rape culture to flourish, whereby cis men are told they are entitled to our bodies. Of course, many men are outraged at the Roastbusters events, but many are also responding in patriarchal ways that exacerbate the problem. The masculine vigilante violence that has been proposed against Roastbusters’ masculine violence won’t stop rape from happening, or indeed help many survivors to heal.

How then to take a stand against sexual violence? Leaving aside the police, one might wonder why the friends of the Roastbusters crew didn’t raise objections while their friends were drugging, raping and then publicly humiliating underage women. People are more likely to listen to their friends than to strangers, and cis men generally listen to cis men more than any other gender. Groups like White Ribbon have recognised this, calling on men to take a stand against the misogyny and violence that manifests in cases like Roastbusters. Ironically, it is likely that they will receive more praise than the feminist and other rights groups who have opposed sexism and rape culture for decades.

The supposed helplessness claimed by the police and others in the face of rape culture is particularly frustrating, because certain techniques, education programmes and structural reforms have been tested and proven to work in reducing rape rates. Anti-rapist advertisements in Vancouver, for example, resulted in the number of sexual assault reports in the area dropping by 10% for the first time in several years. And as Greta Christina said, this was a one-off ad campaign; imagine what effect a sustained anti-rape movement at all levels of society could produce. On the New Zealand front, below is a fantastic anti-rape PSA, which takes the viewer up to the point of sexual assault and then rewinds to show how bystanders can make a difference. It shows the rape of a drunk woman, so commonly framed as “grey rape” rather than real rape, and avoids both victim-blaming and the Evil Rapist narrative. (Trigger warning, so only watch if you’re feeling strong.)

Much of the public debate has been triggering and upsetting for rape survivors and their allies, with its framing of rape as an abstract problem rarely seen outside a law lecture. The conceptual and sometimes judicial dehumanisation of rapists disguises the levels at which the routine violence of rape seeps into all areas of our culture. What minimalist sex education is offered at schools, usually amounting to ways to avoid pregnancy and STDs, does not equip people to understand what enthusiastic consent means, or how to deconstruct models of masculinity that encourage sexual violence and coercion. Too often rape prevention is understood as catching criminals after the act, rather than preventing trauma from being set in motion.

It’s possible that the Roastbusters affair could be a watershed moment in New Zealand’s rape culture politics. The anger around the country is widespread and palpable; protest actions against rape culture have been organised in Wellington,Auckland, and Christchurch. Many are refusing to treat rape as a nasty but inevitable part of living in human society. The dismantling of rape culture will take time, since rape is enabled by all sorts of different institutions and social practices. But at the most basic level, the questions are: what will you do when someone you know is raped? Almost as importantly, what will you do when someone you know turns out to be a rapist, or when they display predatory characteristics? As the Who Are You ad above says, you can be the difference in how the story ends.

Anne Russell is a journalist with a long-standing interest in feminist politics, queer rights and the cultural formations of intimate relationships.