His comments came at a Select Committee on the budget for parliamentary service and Labour's Rachel Boyack asked about the security of MPs, saying when MPs were out in public they didn't necessarily know where they might face risks, and that security was often reactive rather than proactive. The issue of security for MPs has been percolating for quite some time. Back in April, a report was released by Frontiers in Psychiatry and it revealed that more MPs are reducing their public outings. They fear being home alone, they change their routines regularly, and they lose time from work as a result of abuse and harassment. The research surveyed 54 MPs in 2022 and it had found threats had increased and were of a more disturbing nature when compared to a similar study done in 2014. The intensity of abuse increased hugely during the heights of the Covid-19 pandemic (you can imagine that, given how heightened everything was), and it simply hadn't fallen away after Covid-19, which is a bit alarming.
The author of the report said disturbingly, women were at a significantly higher risk of certain types of social media harassment, including gendered abuse, sexualised comments, threats of sexual violence, and threats towards their family. Who finds that surprising, though? Whenever anybody abuses women, even if you're out and about somewhere where the drink is flowing at a festival or at the pub or anywhere, the way women are abused is completely different to the way men are abused. It's how they look. It's who they may or may not have bonked. It's whether they'd be likely to be up for it. This is nothing new. This has not come about since Covid. Women have always been abused and it's always been around sexual violence and how they look, and their family.
Of the 54 MPs who participated, 98% of them said they'd experienced harassment, ranging from disturbing communication to physical violence. Nearly half of the women were fearful for their safety at home, compared to just 5% of men. And as I say, I can well believe the misogyny. You should have seen the texts that came in when Jacinda Ardern was on the radio. I didn't mind criticising her and for the decisions she made when she was in power, it had nothing to do with the way she looked or because she was a woman or because of the relationship she had. The abuse that her child got was simply unforgivable. Mercifully not on this text machine, because that would make me question humanity, it was more on the deep net, but I mean sick.
I've had death threats. I've had stalkers, I've had abuse. More recently, social media campaigns, and while 99.9% of the time, it really doesn't bother me, occasionally you do get wobbly, not for yourself, but for your family. You don't want them subject to that sort of vileness just because of your job. For me, I don't think they're necessarily genuine threats. People get angry, people get upset, people feel you're misrepresenting them, or you're a figurehead for a cruel, cruel world that doesn't understand them. And I get that people feel really, really angry sometimes at the world, and you as a mouthpiece are a symbol for all that’s wrong with that world. And I kind of understand it. Do I think I need extra security? No, I don't. I'm willing to go out in public, interact with people, chat to people and absolutely have faith that even if people don't like you, they won't necessarily come up and scream abuse at you or assault you in public. And I think it's the same with the MPs.
But there are plenty of people who do need protection, and those are the people who are working in retail, who get abused on a daily basis. People working in jewellery stores. There are people who are in relationships, they try and end them - they are at very real risk of coming to harm. Genuine risk.
So, do politicians need protection more than any other group in the community? I wouldn't have thought so. There's been the horrible attack on James Shaw, there's been all sorts of online abuse and what have you, but it's the people in the supermarkets, the people in the retail stores that are targeted by thugs, I would have thought they needed the beefed up security guards, not privileging MPs over the shop workers. And if we're going to be able to give extra powers to security guards to protect our parliamentarians, then why can't we get security guards with beefed up powers to protect our retail workers? Their threat isn't imagined, isn't perceived, isn't just around the corner. There are retail workers going to work today who will be physically attacked somewhere around the country. The threat is real for them. So why can't they get security guards with beefed up powers?
Kerre McIvor, is a journalist, radio presenter, author and columnist. Currently hosts the Kerre Woodham mornings show on Newstalk ZB - where this article was sourced.
The author of the report said disturbingly, women were at a significantly higher risk of certain types of social media harassment, including gendered abuse, sexualised comments, threats of sexual violence, and threats towards their family. Who finds that surprising, though? Whenever anybody abuses women, even if you're out and about somewhere where the drink is flowing at a festival or at the pub or anywhere, the way women are abused is completely different to the way men are abused. It's how they look. It's who they may or may not have bonked. It's whether they'd be likely to be up for it. This is nothing new. This has not come about since Covid. Women have always been abused and it's always been around sexual violence and how they look, and their family.
Of the 54 MPs who participated, 98% of them said they'd experienced harassment, ranging from disturbing communication to physical violence. Nearly half of the women were fearful for their safety at home, compared to just 5% of men. And as I say, I can well believe the misogyny. You should have seen the texts that came in when Jacinda Ardern was on the radio. I didn't mind criticising her and for the decisions she made when she was in power, it had nothing to do with the way she looked or because she was a woman or because of the relationship she had. The abuse that her child got was simply unforgivable. Mercifully not on this text machine, because that would make me question humanity, it was more on the deep net, but I mean sick.
I've had death threats. I've had stalkers, I've had abuse. More recently, social media campaigns, and while 99.9% of the time, it really doesn't bother me, occasionally you do get wobbly, not for yourself, but for your family. You don't want them subject to that sort of vileness just because of your job. For me, I don't think they're necessarily genuine threats. People get angry, people get upset, people feel you're misrepresenting them, or you're a figurehead for a cruel, cruel world that doesn't understand them. And I get that people feel really, really angry sometimes at the world, and you as a mouthpiece are a symbol for all that’s wrong with that world. And I kind of understand it. Do I think I need extra security? No, I don't. I'm willing to go out in public, interact with people, chat to people and absolutely have faith that even if people don't like you, they won't necessarily come up and scream abuse at you or assault you in public. And I think it's the same with the MPs.
But there are plenty of people who do need protection, and those are the people who are working in retail, who get abused on a daily basis. People working in jewellery stores. There are people who are in relationships, they try and end them - they are at very real risk of coming to harm. Genuine risk.
So, do politicians need protection more than any other group in the community? I wouldn't have thought so. There's been the horrible attack on James Shaw, there's been all sorts of online abuse and what have you, but it's the people in the supermarkets, the people in the retail stores that are targeted by thugs, I would have thought they needed the beefed up security guards, not privileging MPs over the shop workers. And if we're going to be able to give extra powers to security guards to protect our parliamentarians, then why can't we get security guards with beefed up powers to protect our retail workers? Their threat isn't imagined, isn't perceived, isn't just around the corner. There are retail workers going to work today who will be physically attacked somewhere around the country. The threat is real for them. So why can't they get security guards with beefed up powers?
Kerre McIvor, is a journalist, radio presenter, author and columnist. Currently hosts the Kerre Woodham mornings show on Newstalk ZB - where this article was sourced.
1 comment:
You forget just how important, yet fragile our MP's are. Pampered could be the word. They need protection from the rough and tumble of life.
Now those others you mentioned, like retail workers, they don't need it. They know about rough and tumble, they grew up in it. They have spent their lives surving, so they are okay.
But our precious members of Parliament, some have never actually had what we would consider a real job. So yes, they need shielding and protection from the reality they create.
Post a Comment
Thanks for engaging in the debate!
Because this is a public forum, we will only publish comments that are respectful and do NOT contain links to other sites. We appreciate your cooperation.