Emma Wills and those distributing flyers headed "We Believe Louise Nicholas" go too far in breaching the High Court order suppressing certain evidence in the recent rape trial of Clint Rickards, Bob Schollum and Brad Shipton. I have no problems with their belief in Louise Nicholas – she is believable. I take issue with their assumption that the evidence they claim was suppressed, automatically constitutes proof of Bob Schollum's and Brad Shipton's guilt.
It is valid to argue that the jury should have had access to all the evidence and to be outraged that it was not. It is not valid to take that outrage and set themselves up as judge, jury and hangman. Guilt should never be assumed. Not even in the court of public opinion. Those who believe in Louise Nicholas would be better to put their energies into funding a civil case against the alleged rapists. Instead they may find their energies and funds expended on defending themselves against criminal charges. Mau mau te taima. A waste of time.
This post is not as soft as those preceding it. But it still represents an effort to listen and hear another point of view while at the same time challenging that view to stretch further and understand more than its own starting point.
This whole issue of the Rickards / Schollum / Shipton rape trial is the kind of thing that acts as a springboard for a heap of deep-seated and entrenched viewpoints (talkback radio stuff). They probably all have some validity, but are too often no more than static that blocks rather than helps the korero. Too much heat and outrage and too little light and understanding.
Outrage only takes people so far - and sometimes that's too far, specially when it succeeds mainly in pissing off those whose support is needed to bring about the desired change. In this case it seems Louise Nicholas' supporters want at least two things to change:
It is valid to argue that the jury should have had access to all the evidence and to be outraged that it was not. It is not valid to take that outrage and set themselves up as judge, jury and hangman. Guilt should never be assumed. Not even in the court of public opinion. Those who believe in Louise Nicholas would be better to put their energies into funding a civil case against the alleged rapists. Instead they may find their energies and funds expended on defending themselves against criminal charges. Mau mau te taima. A waste of time.
This post is not as soft as those preceding it. But it still represents an effort to listen and hear another point of view while at the same time challenging that view to stretch further and understand more than its own starting point.
This whole issue of the Rickards / Schollum / Shipton rape trial is the kind of thing that acts as a springboard for a heap of deep-seated and entrenched viewpoints (talkback radio stuff). They probably all have some validity, but are too often no more than static that blocks rather than helps the korero. Too much heat and outrage and too little light and understanding.
Outrage only takes people so far - and sometimes that's too far, specially when it succeeds mainly in pissing off those whose support is needed to bring about the desired change. In this case it seems Louise Nicholas' supporters want at least two things to change:
1. Any public perception that she's a liar. Well - good luck to them. I doubt they'll know when they've won because the court of public opinion is a fickle beast.
2. The conventions / laws that allowed evidence they think should have been aired to be suppressed instead. Well, I reckon to change those they'll need the help of a lawyer or two.
My point then is not that Emma Wills and co should not break the law, but that they might do us all a bigger and truer service if they showed the kind of strategic thinking and action of the "great reformers" like Mandela and Ghandi whose every action, even the "illegal" ones, was underpinned and backed up with a willingness to reach out to and talk with their "enemy". I don't see that same willingness in this case.
To end this post - although I have suggested that Ms Nicholas might take a civil case against these guys, I'd be more interested in facilitating a hohourongo (reconciliation) process for all parties. Because the sad truth is that without reconciliation none of them will ever be completely cleared of the paru from this case.
