Should booksellers stock the Kahui book?
July 1st, 2011 at 5:32 am by David FarrarStuff reports:
New Zealanders are angry that Whitcoulls will not confirm whether it will stock Macsyna King’s exposé about the death of her twin boys are taking their frustration to the book seller’s Twitter and Facebook pages.
That should read “Some New Zealanders …”
Yesterday PaperPlus announced it would not be selling the book Breaking Silence: The Kahui Case following overwhelming feedback from their staff and members of the public.
But Whitcoulls head office is refusing to confirm whether it will stock the controversial tell-all.
In a post on the company’s Facebook page the book chain says it is taking “all views into account” before deciding whether or not to stock the book.
“We want to make a balanced decision and will let people know the outcome as soon as possible.”
The online update has prompted more than 80 messages in response.
Many of the messages in response support Whitcoulls in (so far) not banning the book.
As a general principle I do not like booksellers deciding on my behalf what they think I should or should not read. However I respect their right as a private company to only stock whatever they want.
It seems to me there is a logical halfway step. Why doesn’t Whitcoulls stock the book for those who want to buy it, but not advertise or promote it in any way. Don’t have it on display. Just have it filed away in the appropriate section where people can find it if they want it.
UPDATE: Having now read the Q+A at the Herald with Ian Wishart, I don’t see what the fuss is about. If King was profiting from the book, I could understand the reluctance to stock the book. But she isn’t. So I don’t see why it should be different to any other book – buy it or don’t buy it based on your preferences.
Related posts:
- Macsyna King and ‘that book’
- Apple Stock instead of products
- Harry Potter Book Seven on the Internet
- A hilarious book
July 1st, 2011 at 5:56 am
It hasn’t been banned. I cannot understand why someone would want to read about this gaggle of wierdo losers. Isn’t it akin to visiting bedlam in the 19th century?
Vote:July 1st, 2011 at 7:12 am
yes
Vote:July 1st, 2011 at 7:13 am
Ban = compulsion; boycott = choice.
I’m choosing not to buy or read the book, but Wishart’s protestations about freedom of speech having died are OTT. Those protesting about his book ARE exercising freedom of speech!
Vote:July 1st, 2011 at 7:18 am
I am astounded at the number of people that are rushing to pre-judge this book without even skimming the contents.
King is reviled, and rightly so, for her part in this tragedy, but it seems many of us are more than willing to put our hands over our ears, close our eyes and while acknowlegding the deaths of the 2 children, deny ourselves the opportunity to learn something about how this sort of thing happened in the first place.
This book could be an important social commentary about how NZ society allows this sort of thing to happen. Imagine Once Were Warriors, but true. This rushing to pre-judge, with a SMALL on line community seeking to have this book banned from the shelves of retailers, and also from on-line traders such as Trade me, disturbs me greatly.
We could learn from this book. Are we content to let prejudice determine if we can or cannot?
Vote:July 1st, 2011 at 7:18 am
I’m bemused by the opposition to the book..
Lets imagine three scenarios and see what the likely reaction would be..
1. Ian Wishart produces a semi biography of Macsyna working from sources which is in the form of a morality play with much tut tutting. There’d be people who wanted to buy it to reinforce their view about this piece of slime.
2. A semi biography is produced with Macsyna by a university professor or noted person of the left which shows how badly she was treated by society and men.
3. The actual book being produced by Wishart.
Straight away you know that the first two books would be fine. The first because its about morality and the second because its paid for by the taxpayer and blames said tax payers.
But you just know the third book is trouble because its contents are unlikely to follow the well rehearsed themes of the other two and its about *PROFIT*.
JC
Vote:July 1st, 2011 at 7:19 am
If, as I expect has happened, head office has decreed that individual franchisees cannot stock the book, then it can be said to have been banned. On the other hand, the whole concept of a franchise involves a hierarchical body making decisions on behalf of a group. This is a commercial decision that it is entitled to make.
If it is a principled decision then surely it must be another aspect of “freedom of expression ” that others advocate in favour of publication. No-one is challenging Wishart’s right to publish. He cannot challenge anyone’s right not to stock. I think he could if Whitcoulls, Warehouse and Paper Plus got together and collectively agreed not to stock anything Wishart wrote. That is another story.
A bookseller also has the right to make a decision on the strength of bigotted, ill-informed public reaction. How it fares after that depends on the balance of discerning/non-discerning customers.
Much of the problem is attributable to the way the news broke. I first heard that Macsyna was writing a book. It took some some before the paradigm shifted to an insight into what causes child abuse.
For my part, NZ has the right to get an accurate insight into what happened and why. I just don’t think Wishart is the one to do it. But then, that’s just my opinion.
Vote:July 1st, 2011 at 7:24 am
As a general principle I do not like booksellers deciding on my behalf what they think I should or should not read
But they make that decision every day. The books you can buy at a chain bookstore constitute – what? – 0.001% of given books in print? They choose which ones to stock based on commercial decisions.
And they don’t always bow to pressure or threats of boycott. Bookstores are carrying ‘Go the Fuck to Sleep’. I think the public pressure on the booksellers worked in the case of this book because it’s a book people really didn’t want sitting on their shelves.
Vote:July 1st, 2011 at 7:25 am
JC
Assuming those are the only three scenarios; many people would avoid (1) because Wishart is the author and we would never hear of (2) because, fankly, it wouldn’t be very interesting.
Vote:July 1st, 2011 at 7:25 am
be interesting to see if Wishart appears on Willie and JT this arvo, handbags at high noon
Vote:July 1st, 2011 at 7:31 am
The only time free speech laws ahould have been bent was when Paul Holmes released an album a few years back
Vote:July 1st, 2011 at 7:34 am
Refusing to buy it is a right I accept.
Vote:Refusing to stock it is also a right.
Campaigning to make my right to access it at my bookseller interferes with my rights.
Ian Wishart has an inalienable right to free speech.
Yes I have a line in the sand but the need for the purifying effect of sunlight on the lifestyle choices that made this mess possible mean that this does not reach anywhere near that line.
Just as the vacuum of thinking among political leaders of the 1930s and their reaction to Herr Hitlers true intentions had they read Mein Kampf was a serious ommission, many who pontificate on welfare, its merits and its dark unintended consequences should probably read what Wishart writes about this disaster.
I accept I W’s statement that King wont gain from the royalties in any way.
btw I wont buy it but many who view welfare through rosetinted glasses probably should.
July 1st, 2011 at 7:35 am
ian just likes his role as gatekeeper to speech (as a publisher who chooses to sell or not tell people’s stories based on if he wants to or not) and doesn’t like paper plus messing it up by using their right to freedom of action to just happen to not sell his book.
Surely as Inventory implied forcing paper plus to stock the book would be much worse than then not letting Ian sell the book via their stores.
you might as well force them to sell hard core porn.
“I am astounded at the number of people that are rushing to pre-judge this book without even skimming the contents.”
if you want to know who to vote for do you go ask Hone (and pay him a little donation for the honor) or do you look at all the other information available to you?
Anyway whatever happens someone will read a copy of the book (even if it is just ian) and they will eventually come on web boards and say the interesting bits. I’m sure macsyna wont be entirely silenced……she wont even be silenced as much as most people are by any sort of book ban even if it involves every distributor of books.
unless ian silences her in a desperate attempt to sell his books and not tell us her story unless we pay !
Vote:July 1st, 2011 at 7:48 am
Not quite book burning, but on the slippery slope.
Vote:Ban it ? What book next ?
July 1st, 2011 at 7:49 am
mikenmild,
Dead right.
But book No 2 would end up in every university and be quoted for years to come as “An important social commentary of the continuing colonisation and marginalisation of Maori, particularly as seen through the eyes of an abused Maori woman”.
JC
Vote:July 1st, 2011 at 7:54 am
Since when did reading a book = supporting the participants.
Are people really that fucking thick?
Vote:July 1st, 2011 at 7:57 am
You can always buy it from Ian and cut out the middle man. No harm, no foul.
Vote:July 1st, 2011 at 8:00 am
Danyl Mclauchlan misses the point. Yes, retailers make decisions on what they do and do not stock every day. A bookseller will choose not to stock a book if it is thought that it will not sell, and that is fine. Of course if someone was to want a book, then it can be ordered as a one-off.
However, what we have here is reatilers choosing not to stock a book, because a third party does not want you or I to buy and read this book. Why?
Is it a sound commercial decision to not stock a book because people who do not want to read it, and wont buy it, want to dictate that choice to others?
Vote:July 1st, 2011 at 8:01 am
@ Ciaron; yeah; Ian’d like that. The more he sells directly, the more dosh his publishing company makes. Thanks, but no thanks…
Vote:July 1st, 2011 at 8:02 am
This is just the tip of the iceberg. Go to any bookshop and you’ll see row upon row of history and biography books, where the lives and deeds of unpleasant people are recorded.
Is it right that professional historians should profit by writing about such awful events as World War Two?
Now is the time to act. Please register your disapproval by supporting the Facebook page Let’s boycott history books, because of all the unpleasant people in them
Do it for the kids.
Vote:July 1st, 2011 at 8:02 am
The reason this is a story and not just an example of a bookstore choosing what it wants to sell is that there is an expected demand for the book. The reason some people are happy about is because they think that because of this decision, less people are going to buy this book.
This is just another nail in the coffin for Paper Plus, Whitcoulls and other bricks and mortar bookstores. A company of principle would stock this book, there are many options for displaying it discreetly. It is not a book I have any interest in buying but if it was I would get it from Amazon anyway who don’t treat their customers in this manner.
If there is an issue with Macsyna receiving money from the book then that is an issue for courts to decide and should be persued through the legal system.
Vote:July 1st, 2011 at 8:10 am
Amazing the publicity a bunch of lunatic book burners with a facebook page can create. I doubt that Ian Wishart could have afforded to buy the equivalent advertising.
Vote:July 1st, 2011 at 8:12 am
No one is dictating to anyone in this instance. Anyone who wants to read this book can obtain it quite readily. Some booksellers have decided not to stock it. That is a commercial decision for them to make and they have made it based on their assessment of likely customer reaction.
Equating this with freedom of speech or ‘book burning’ is very silly.
Vote:July 1st, 2011 at 8:12 am
What slightlyrighty & JC said at 7.18 (couldn’t have said it better myself).
Vote:July 1st, 2011 at 8:22 am
Iv2, so what? there will always be a place to buy it, and if you don’t agree with certain retailers stance (assuming one is inclined to hear MK out), one is free to protest said stance by taking their money elsewhere. Free market in action, no?
Vote:July 1st, 2011 at 8:25 am
Milkenmild.
This is a free speech issue. What we have here is that should a organisation choose to sell this book, a small group, motivated by prejudice, is saying we do not want to read this book, and we do not want you to sell it so that no one else can read this book.
There is a facebook campaign to stop this book being traded on Trade me at the moment. There is small but vocal pressure being put on any outlet that would even consider having this book as part of their range.
Now these people don’t want to hear what they percieve as King’s side of the story. At this point they do not even know the content of the book, the conclusions it might have reached, and wether or not the book has any redeeming social or moral value. In the interest of balance, neither do I, but my ignorance of it’s contents does not extend to me critcising any organisation that may choose to make that content available.
Vote:July 1st, 2011 at 8:33 am
You think it’s a coincidence that the pre-publicity launch for the book, which won’t be available for a month, begins during the last phase of the inquest? I have this bridge for sale…
Vote:July 1st, 2011 at 8:37 am
@slightlyrighty “Imagine Once Were Warriors, but true.”
It was, I saw it (and worse) daily in the early ’90s when working in Hamilton.
On the book, I object strongly that anyone might tryand pressure a bookstore to not sell a particular item to me. None of their freekin business what I might want to purchase. If the bookseller doesn’t stock it because it is not viable then fair enough but I thought we had seen the end of Patricia Bartlett and seen sense some time ago.
Sadly we haven’t it seems.
Vote:July 1st, 2011 at 8:38 am
slightlyrighty
Definitely not a free speech issue. The right to free speech is related to power. No one has the power to suppress this book: it is freely available. Though I personally do not want to read this book, I don’t care where or how it is available. I respect the right of retailers to decide not to stock it. You may think they are being pressured; the other side of the coin is them responding to customer preference.
Vote:July 1st, 2011 at 9:03 am
Wishart must be loving this, all this talk of bans etc is advertising that money simply can’t buy.. it will sell out in an instant, whereas it there hadn’t been media coverage it would have probably sat on the shelves for months..
Vote:July 1st, 2011 at 9:08 am
No one is dictating to anyone in this instance.
A statement that could not be more false.
Ian is reporting that retailers are being forced to call him and cancel orders, in spite of having customers all because they have the wrong franchise name. Paper plus is dictating to their stores what they can sell.
Vote:July 1st, 2011 at 9:11 am
You think it’s a coincidence that the pre-publicity launch for the book, which won’t be available for a month, begins during the last phase of the inquest? I have this bridge for sale…
You mean the one you purchased yourself? You’re the one fooled into thinking that this was launch publicity when Ian Wishart has made it clear that this publicity has actually been detrimental to finishing the book. It was TVNZ that started the outcry after someone leaked the book details. That was their decision, Ian was merely informing bookshops that the title would be available.
Vote:July 1st, 2011 at 9:13 am
Some booksellers have decided not to stock it. That is a commercial decision for them to make and they have made it based on their assessment of likely customer reaction.
Specifically, the threats of arson against shops that don’t do their bidding.
Equating this with freedom of speech or ‘book burning’ is very silly.
Vote:July 1st, 2011 at 9:14 am
Bookshops should not censor the supply and availability of books, because it is a form of filtering. Sure, there is some natural selection (what’s saleable, public decency, etc.). Thank goodness for BookDepository and the Internet which make anything available. The People should choose from their personal moral base, not shops (will bakeries now not stock buttery scones due to heart disease?). Public impact on others is different (2nd hand smoke, drunkeness in public, pornographic street signs, public nudity, etc.) but NOT censorship of the supply of books.
The Kahui book is mob mentality and lynching. “Burn the witch!”. If we do this we must purge historic books, like Mein Kamf, the Marquis de sade, Madonnas’ riduculous photo book, etc. Error here is equating reaction to child domestic violence with Wishart’s right to publish a perspective book. NZers can be such sheep (dangerous).
Vote:July 1st, 2011 at 9:17 am
Paperplus / Whitcoulls have no duty to uphold free speech and moral values – they can stock whatever books they want, for whatever reasons.
If they have deemed that this book is more trouble than it’s worth because the facebook-enabled demographic says so, then that’s a perfectly reasonable conclusion to come to.
On another note, I think Wishart has done a good job explaining his point of view to the angry mob.
Vote:July 1st, 2011 at 9:21 am
The appropriate place for Macsyna King to have broken her silence was during the trial.
As far as I am concerned she is guilty if not of the assault on the babies, then aiding and abetting the assailant due to her and her family’s silence.
Vote:July 1st, 2011 at 9:24 am
It seems akin to the Islamist mentality where the calls for beheading those who might criticise Mahommed (or is it Mohammed?) are seemingly acceptable. A (small) group is trying to impose its will on the majority through threats and intimidation.
Looks like we are going backwards fast really.
I will warrant that a fair proportion of those calling for the bookstores to cancel their orders could quote Voltaire verbatim and might even believe what they say but are kneejerking so furiously that their vision is blurred and they can’t see their own hypocrisy.
Vote:July 1st, 2011 at 9:24 am
Good grief. Why the fuck does anyone actually care about this? Their shops, their choice, just like its the choice of anyone stupid enough to give the weasel Wishart any money.
Vote:July 1st, 2011 at 9:25 am
What I find amazing is how the booksellers have clearly taken fright because a bunch of people who would never have bought the book anyway clicked ‘like’ on a facebook page. The Kahui case is a national disgrace, and this book could have possibly done a lot of good in shining a light on the brutal underclass that exists in this country.
Vote:July 1st, 2011 at 9:25 am
The appropriate place for Macsyna King to have broken her silence was during the trial.
She has only been silent to the media. For some perverse reason, people seem to think that equates to silence to the police, even though she was a police witness and is reported to have been cooperative at all stages.
Breaking her media silence (as per your suggestion) during the trial would have in fact been the very worst time, and potentially illegal to boot.
Vote:July 1st, 2011 at 9:31 am
Lance said…
Since when did reading a book = supporting the participants.
Are people really that fucking thick?
Hehe, good comment Lance. I learnt about murderers as Stalin, Hitler, Guevara via reading from some print materials that were published by some authors. But I don’t like thugs and murderers as I have mentioned.
Vote:July 1st, 2011 at 9:31 am
What I find amazing is how the booksellers have clearly taken fright because a bunch of people who would never have bought the book anyway clicked ‘like’ on a facebook page.
Ditto.
But of course, it’s the threats of physical harm that have really done the job.
Heck, the very campaign itself says almost as much about our attitudes towards violence as the book does!
Vote:July 1st, 2011 at 9:41 am
“She has only been silent to the media. For some perverse reason, people seem to think that equates to silence to the police, even though she was a police witness and is reported to have been cooperative at all stages.”
On her terms — which, if the reports are correct, involves immunity from prosecution. Self first.
Vote:July 1st, 2011 at 9:52 am
Danyl said: “They choose which ones to stock based on commercial decisions.”
Quite true but booksellers haven’t made a commercial decision in this case, they’ve made a moral one. Believe it or not, I am quite capable of making my own moral decisions without booksellers assisting me.
Vote:July 1st, 2011 at 9:57 am
Oh I just love the hypocrisy of our “urban elite” the white liberal. On one hand they have worldwide protests in the form of “slutwalk” and yet when a genuine slut writes a book they want to ban it!
Vote:July 1st, 2011 at 10:09 am
Mike said…
No one is dictating to anyone in this instance.
Mike, what happens in a world when Nanny Simon (from children’s Simon Says game), dictates by making it law?
Remember the other day when we were debating of what rights is? In the world of objective philosophy based system, where rights is defined by our nature (ie, not by someone else but by the observation of our very nature then based rights on those immutable identities) and not by decision of a few influential politicians or even the general public at large?
In your obedient Simon Says Game world it is simply acceptable if politicians & busybodies to step in and dictate. Can you see how danger is arbitrariness is dangerous? A standard must be immutable, which is free from being attack by interest groups, lobbyists, politicians, etc, etc,…
See, there won’t be any contradiction at all. Bookstores own the stores. Who has the rights not to stock them? Umm, it is their properties after all. It is them who hold the rights. Not Ian Wishart, not the government, not the potential consumer. Understand now? So, give your opinion below on a hypothetical situation, WHAT IF the state steps in and says that local bookstores must not stock Ian’s book or perhaps it orders them to stock Ian’s book? First , the govt is violating the bookstores property rights. Govt, has no rights at all to dictate to bookstores in any form.
Do you now start to see that rights must be immutable? Or you still Ok with a system of Simon Says (do as you’re told and don’t protest or ask)?
PS : I don’t hate fat people as I mentioned on the General Debate thread the other day, because there are some fatties in family and relatives . However I did use that example to highlight of rights violations & expose the absurdity of your political philosophies.
Sue Kedgely can decide with a few colleagues in Parliament that they do want to make the population slim by imposing a variety of heavy regulations on supermarkets and fast-food restaurants to change their way of doing things in order to protect the fatties from getting fatter, since fatties like to eat McDonalds and love fatty meat from the supermarkets? Such heavy handed regulations are violations of the rights of the supermarkets & fast-food outlets to conduct their businesses of how they see fit. The rights of consumers are not being violated if they choose to buy fatty brisket meat at supermarkets or eat McDs everyday. However regulating them not to sell those types of food is , err! rights violations on its own.
Vote:July 1st, 2011 at 10:25 am
Ian has a right to be a bit miffed at these large booksellers who must have made a dollar or two out of his several best sellers and retailing Investigate Magazine. Joe Karam should be breathing a sigh of relief that he wasn’t boycotted following publication of his book which proved David BAIN innocent (haha) of cold bloodedly slaughtering his whole family.
I agree with the sentiments of D.P.F. with the exception that if Whitcoulls should decide to retail it they certainly shouldn’t have it hidden away with the banned they should display openly according to what they think the demand will be.
I think this is the first of the hysteria that will be whipped up by Interest Groups using Facebook, twitter etc.
Vote:July 1st, 2011 at 10:30 am
Surely more of a point would be made if the bookshops stocked it and no one bought it?
Vote:July 1st, 2011 at 10:41 am
To me, how I feel about the book itself depends on how much Macsyna withheld from the police. If what Wishart claims is true – that Macsyna held more crucial information but didn’t volunteer it merely because police “didn’t ask the right question” then that is almost as bad as being party to the “wall of silence”. In that case I agree entirely with Raybon Kan’s tweet on the matter.
As far as the decision whether to stock the book, Whitcoulls et al will be making a commercial decision rather than a moral decision. They are already on shaky commercial grounds having just avoided a collapse. They will be understandably nervous about a FB group of 45,000 threatening to boycott their store if they choose even to stock the book. But I don’t see it as a free speech issue.
Vote:Free speech is a negative right; which means others are obliged not to prevent you from expressing yourself. It does not mean, however, that they are obliged to provide the means for you to do so. Wishart could publish entirely online if he wanted to. That may not be as commercially viable for his publishing business, but his freedom of expression is not hindered.
July 1st, 2011 at 10:44 am
Like it or not, Wishart is a respected journalist, well-known for his uncompromising attitude toward facts and the truth. To blame him, or attempt to hold him to account for having written anything, is both fatuous and absurd – and yet, look at what so many of our doozies have written here.
Frankly, I wouldn’t have believed how widely spread in our society has become the headless-chook syndrome. Braying asses (to mix a metaphor) driven solely by emotional perspectives, but pretending expertise and subject knowledge that are patently non-existent, feel compelled to dictate circumstances to the rest of us.
Such phenomenon must be the sort of legacy we should have expected after 9 years of letting an idiot party like Labour inflict inane and unsavoury determinations on the population.
Yukkkk!!!!
Vote:July 1st, 2011 at 10:52 am
On her terms — which, if the reports are correct, involves immunity from prosecution. Self first.
If that’s correct, you can be perfectly sure that she was not given immunity for causing the death. And the fact remains that she *did* cooperate and the others did not.
Vote:July 1st, 2011 at 11:06 am
Scrubone
Vote:Possibly correct. I do not have enough in the way of facts which seems to be a common complaint in this matter. Hence the tendancy for emotion to overpower reason in some quarters.
July 1st, 2011 at 11:13 am
Whaleoil has nailed it.
If paper plus can respond to Family First, who called for them to not stock “Go the F**k to Sleep”, by replying as follows….
“Paper Plus is not in a position to act as the moral compass for NZ families and we believe it is our responsibility to give our customers access to a complete range of books and stationery.”
Then why this stand on this book?
Vote:July 1st, 2011 at 11:15 am
Actually, Scrubone, the immunity guidelines appear to contemplate the possibility that an accomplice could be given immunity. The issue is who is the greater threat. This might all be hypothetical because I have heard only anecdotally that there was immunity and we would have to find out whether it is true and what the terms were.
Vote:July 1st, 2011 at 11:27 am
‘If I Did It’ had a ghostwriter too, and David Bain didn’t write Karam’s books. If a company decides to make the moral decision not to sell some material, whether for the right reason or not, it has nothing to do with banning, free speech, book burning, or censorship.
Vote:July 1st, 2011 at 11:28 am
Press Release: “Paper Plus is now in a position to act as the moral compass for NZ families and we believe it is our responsibility to give our customers access to a restricted range of books and stationery”
Dinasour book sellers Paper Plus and the others refusing to sell this book will steer a section of their (previous) clientele towards cheaper, faster, non-discriminating direct purchase book suppliers such as Amazon, the Book Depository etc – probably never to bother returning to their over-priced High Street bookstores again. Brilliant!
Vote:July 1st, 2011 at 11:36 am
Of course it is not an issue of free speech. No-one is preventing Wishart from publishing the book. Nobody is banning the book. Nobody is preventing the book being publicised.
Some retailers have chosen, for one reason or another, not to stock the book. That is their right. If that position is somewhat hypocritical (see slightlyrighty’s 11.15am comment) then that is also their right.
It is the individual bookseller’s business, and it is their right entirely to decide what they stock, so long as it is not prohibited by law, based on whatever factors they want to include in that decision.
But it is most certainly not an issue of free speech.
Vote:July 1st, 2011 at 11:48 am
Some argue that this is not a free speech issue. I contend that it is. While FE Smith is correct that no-one is preventing Wishart from publishing the book. Nobody is banning the book. and nobody is preventing the book being publicised, any organistion that wishes to sell the book is being targetted by a mob that do not want this book sold by anyone, anywhere. There is even a facebook group targetting Trade Me, asking them not to trade the book.
This would be like allowing people to speak at Hyde Park’s speakers corner, but those speakers being told to whisper.
What good is free speech when there are groups that will not let you listen to or read it, and will do anything in thier power to stop you from obtaining information they deem unsuitable?
Vote:July 1st, 2011 at 11:56 am
It’s a pity this level of public outcry and energy can’t be directed against the those actually involved in the (ongoing) abuse of our children. But I presume it’s because of our weak laws and seemingly useless public institutions that all we can do is vent our anger at a book. How pathetic.
I agree that online bookstores – and probably those offshore – will do very well out of this.
Vote:July 1st, 2011 at 12:05 pm
slightlyrightly
Vote:I could be wrong, but I suspect a large part of the resistance to the book comes from the fact it is a commercial product (notwithstanding the fact King herself is not going to benefit financially). Free speech does not require that an expression should be profitable (for whatever reason). If Wishart chose to publish online as a free e-book, for example, I doubt this would be an issue.
July 1st, 2011 at 12:07 pm
“anything in their power”…like “asking them [TradeMe] not to trade the book”?! I don’t want to seem dismissive, but it’s hardly like they’re firebombing bookstores here.
Vote:July 1st, 2011 at 12:11 pm
Christine Rankin of the Families Commission in an interview on Close Up on Wednesday night advocates that all New Zealanders should read this book “because this is a major problem in our country”.
Vote:Christine is totally correct in making that statement because for better or worse this is one subject that the country has to face head on, and this case is the catalyst.
Reading the book will be painful, it won’t make pleasant reading, but it will be insightful.
July 1st, 2011 at 12:19 pm
slightlyrighty 11:48am “any organistion that wishes to sell the book is being targetted by a mob that do not want this book sold by anyone, anywhere. There is even a facebook group targetting Trade Me, asking them not to trade the book.”
Those people are exercising their right to free speech. If you don’t like what they’re saying you have equal rights to state your opinion, such as you’re doing here, or you could even start a Facebook group supporting the sale of the book.
Vote:July 1st, 2011 at 12:38 pm
One can see why Clark and Cullen and co got away withimposing the crap they did upon us. There are just too many lamebrained, emotional stupid Kiwi’s who should sign up not to vote.
But then who is surprised given they want Nanny State to do everything for them. You can be sure all those making their unjustifed noisy attacks on others rights are the same who think women never have periods, working for families is a God given right and that’s after they have claimed their free education and free student loans.
time toget tough and remove the Nanny from their lives and ensure that they are too busy earning a living to waste their time on socialism at its worst.
Vote:July 1st, 2011 at 12:39 pm
I wish the world would get real. I almost laughed out loud to hear someone on the national radio yesterday getting all excited because a store wouldnt stock the book.
Bookstores are a commercial operation – they decide everyday to either stock or not stock hundreds of books. They are not a social agency paid by the government and as we saw recently with witcoull,s when you make the wrong decisions you go broke.
Like all such operations they have the right to sell or not sell any book they like – theuy dont any responsibility to anyone to stock any item at all.
Vote:July 1st, 2011 at 12:42 pm
Exercising free speech is saying, “I do not agree with this book”. It is not saying, “I do not want you to sell this book to others”
There is a difference. In exercising freedom of speech and freedom of expression, you must allow it in all forms.
However, if we are to debate the issue openly, I would say that the groups arrayed aginst the publication of this book would have a lot more credence in my own eyes if any of them had actually bothered to read it first.
Vote:July 1st, 2011 at 12:44 pm
Barry, did you read what Paper Plus said to Family First regarding what they percieved as their responsibilities 3 weeks ago?
I’ll post it again.
“Paper Plus is not in a position to act as the moral compass for NZ families and we believe it is our responsibility to give our customers access to a complete range of books and stationery.”
Vote:July 1st, 2011 at 1:12 pm
Not an issue. You want to buy it or stock it? Knock yourself out.
Vote:July 1st, 2011 at 1:22 pm
I see that Ian Wishart claims that King will now reveal who the real killer is in the book. But the fact is that King has already clearly stated who attacked the twins back in 2006 – she blamed her own 12 month old developmentally challenged son Shayne for climbing up the couch, over the crib side and that he “got at them”. Nice, blaming her own baby son for the murder of both of them, not her and not anyone else. If the book says anything else was she lying back then or now? Credibility much?
Vote:July 1st, 2011 at 1:22 pm
Has anybody heard what Goofy, our wannabe PM-in-waiting, has to say on this issue? He is so decisive and knowledgable on all other matters – we can’t possibly know what to think until we’ve heard the gospel according to Goff.
Vote:July 1st, 2011 at 1:29 pm
slightlyrighty:
“This would be like allowing people to speak at Hyde Park’s speakers corner, but those speakers being told to whisper.”
No, it is like allowing people to speak at the Speaker’s Corner and nobody stopping to listen. You can say what you like but I don’t have to listen to it. You can write what you like but I don’t have to distribute it. If I choose to bow to pressure and not distribute your writings then I am in no way preventing you from exercising your right to free speech.
“What good is free speech when there are groups that will not let you listen to or read it, and will do anything in thier power to stop you from obtaining information they deem unsuitable?”
Nobody is preventing anyone from reading the book. It will be freely available, including from the publisher, and if a person wants to read it badly then they will. I am sure many public libraries will also place it upon their shelves, as they have done with other books by Ian Wishart. Quite rightly, too.
“Free speech… is not saying, “I do not want you to sell this book to others””
Actually, it is. That is an exercise of the free speech of the opponents of the book. They have that right, and the booksellers have every right to ignore them as well, as I am sure some will. Nobody is forcing anyone to do anything here.
“However, if we are to debate the issue openly, I would say that the groups arrayed aginst the publication of this book would have a lot more credence in my own eyes if any of them had actually bothered to read it first.”
Absolutely.
Vote:July 1st, 2011 at 1:33 pm
Well, it’s their right (the booksellers) to stock it…or not.
Personally, don’t know if I’d read it or not. One things for certain, I won’t buy one….fiction is never high on my shopping list. Ha.
Vote:July 1st, 2011 at 1:33 pm
F E Smith
A very good summary, but I don’t think those crying ‘free speech’ are listening.
Vote:July 1st, 2011 at 1:34 pm
In all honesty how many calling for a boycott of this book have actually bought a book recently, any book
If you havn’t read a book how can you judge?
Love the faux outrage
Vote:July 1st, 2011 at 1:38 pm
Once TV3 turns the book into a miniseries (funded by NZ on air) all the outraged will then have a valid opinion on its content.
Vote:July 1st, 2011 at 1:46 pm
milkenmild.
The book was written, and a groundswell of public opinion came out against the book, based on the false premise that King was being seen as trying to profit from this terrible act, which many assume she had a major part in.
As a result a campaign was started on facebook, which has resulted in the withdrawl of sale from some of our major book chains of this publication, even though no-one has actually read it.
Others have said that Wishart can publish this on-line. OK, lets say he does. What if someone starts a campaign against whichever ISP chooses to host this content?
So he decides to give the book away, and someone starts a campaign against the printer of the book?
Admittedly, I am arguing hypotheticals, but what we have here are a number of uninformed people shhoting the messenger, before they’ve even read the damn message.
Let the message get out, and then debate the issues.
Vote:July 1st, 2011 at 1:49 pm
“what we have here are a number of uninformed people shhoting the messenger,”
And people have every right to form and act on uninformed opinions- what other explanation is there for people voting Green?
Vote:July 1st, 2011 at 1:51 pm
slightly
My distaste is not based on the premise that King may profit from the book. It is based on two things:
1. What could she possibly add to our knowledge of this incident given her previous statements and (probable) lies?
2. Wishart’s track record as exploitative fruit loop – it wouldn’t surprise me if the book ‘proves’ that Helen Clark was the true killer or that feminism causes child abuse.
Those are my reasons. There may be many more excellent reasons for discerning New Zealanders to ignore this book.
Vote:July 1st, 2011 at 2:06 pm
Booksellers are rapidly becoming obsolete. But who cares – a shop can choose to stock whatever it likes, within the law.
Vote:July 1st, 2011 at 2:27 pm
milkenmild.
Yes, there are many reasons for discerning New Zealanders to ignore this book. Believe it or not, I actually agree with your 2 points, but what I can’t agree to in all good conscience is not giving Discerning New Zelanders the option.
Vote:July 1st, 2011 at 2:30 pm
Here’s a(nother) disgusting piece from the Herald:
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10735543&ref=rss
They report as if this is a bad thing! Do they not know what libraries are for? If someone wanted to research this event (god knows why they’d bother) this might contain something of use. I can borrow all sorts of books at the library, many of them crap, a few of them controversial.
As usual, the paper uses the same passive aggressive method of bullying that teenage girls have honed! They don’t say anything that can be quoted which shows that they are condemning the library for this, but the fact it’s an article shows that they’re trying to express that view.
I want to know why the NZ Herald continues to publish articles about the controversial book – they’ve made more money out of it than Wishart! I’m just waiting for the news item tonight where some dickhead journo asks John Key and Phil Goff whether they’re going to read the book! Then they’ll ask an All Black.
Vote:July 1st, 2011 at 2:48 pm
Which leaves 4,348,500 New Zelanders who have not joined this facebook page, Whitcoulls and Paper Plus are free to guess about what their reaction to their decision will be.
As a book reader I like to support book sellers that promote book reading in our communities and advocate reading from a wide range. It is for this reason that Amazon is already my bookseller of choice and not Paper Plus or Whitcoulls even though I grew up buying my reading material from them. But if Paper Plus and Whitcoulls make a decision more in tune with an attitude of censorship than promoting wide and challenging reading habits I will make a concerted effort to buy my newspapers, magazines, and stationary from alternative sellers.
Vote:July 1st, 2011 at 3:48 pm
Many people seems to be missing something here
even if the book doesn’t sell – that doesn’t stop the message getting out.
the only thing stopping the message getting out is that Ian wont answer the questions when asked by the media. Ie its IAN doing the censoring.
BTW this sounds like a trap
Vote:“If you havn’t read a book how can you judge?”
because soon as you by the book you are being a hypocrite if you say others can’t… Don’t tell me you wouldn’t call them on that.
July 1st, 2011 at 3:56 pm
It looks like making the book available to buy and read is the only non-hypocritical position GNZ.
Vote:July 1st, 2011 at 3:58 pm
Sonny
You may be interested in this:
http://www.businessinsider.com/amazons-censorship-policy-is-still-incoherent-incest-themed-erotica-removed-from-kindle-store-2010-12
I personally don’t care a great deal if Whitcoulls/Paper Plus decide to stock the book. My interest is how this impinges or otherwise on the notion of free speech. The reality is all bookstores vet their content using different criteria.
Vote:July 1st, 2011 at 3:58 pm
I don’t think it has anything to do with Macsyna getting any money from this book she is after sympathy and understanding, why should she get a say, her twins are dead because she didn’t do her number one and only job of keeping them safe. I could give a shit about her ‘say’.
Vote:July 1st, 2011 at 4:01 pm
“understandably nervous about a FB group of 45,000…”
If I was the book seller I would wait and see if a REAL protest began. A bunch of facebook kiddies clicking a button on a web page is hardly even worth talking about.
Vote:July 1st, 2011 at 4:07 pm
It is a booksellers right not to stock, but they are doing so in this instance because of pressure group THREATS and I do not like the flow of information (availability of books) curtailed by public whip-up campaigns (regardless of the merits). These things should be debated and argued with information NOT by restricting perspectives and books on controversial topics.
Vote:July 1st, 2011 at 4:09 pm
It is a ban:
Hi Ian,
Unfortunately I have to cancel our order for 8 copies of ‘Breaking the Silence’.
It’s not my decision to cancel, as I believe it is not the bookshop’s place to censor what people should/should not read. Nor do I agree with giving in to the public hysteria created by small group of people online, but unfortunately this is the decision.
I apologise again for cancelling.
Vote:July 1st, 2011 at 4:09 pm
I don’t expect perfection adze. They will make mistakes but I trust Amazon and Jeff Bezos more than any other supplier I know of. A Whitcoulls or Paper Plus store has maybe a thousand books available, Amazon has a couple of million.
Vote:July 1st, 2011 at 4:15 pm
Can I just add, as a member of the book trade for 16 years, that bookstores don’t choose not to stock books for editorial reasons, but commercial ones. No bookshop, as others have pointed out, can contain every book ever printed. But we do make decisions based on local relevance, public demand etc. Usually any bookstore can order in virtually any book in the world for you if you wish. However, in this instance affected bookstores are not even permitted to order it in. Against the wishes of the individual store owners, who take the actual business risk, the franchisors at head office have made a decree against the commercial interests of their franchisees.
Where is the right of a bookshop, owner-operated, to decide what he or she should stock based on its merits and local demand?
Vote:July 1st, 2011 at 4:16 pm
Sonny Blount,
well personally I would seriously consider the policy of taking orders for the book and/or keeping it out back – but not advertising it in any form. But I guess it depends on what the profitable decision is and that would be a matter for the experience of Witcoulls and JPG management.
Raging Glory,
it may well be no-one really cares that much – then again there are also companies that have been caught like deer in the headlights by these sorts of issues and have been badly damaged.
Pipkin,
Vote:there are many ways to get fringe benefits from something like this, just hang around the money flow… Then again maybe she sees it as important that she frames someone for it, after-all if it wasn’t them…
July 1st, 2011 at 4:22 pm
Ian “Where is the right of a bookshop, owner-operated, to decide what he or she should stock based on its merits and local demand?”
That will depend on the contract underpinning their franchise agreement.
Vote:July 1st, 2011 at 4:27 pm
Ian,
“Usually any bookstore can order in virtually any book in the world for you if you wish.”
any book? I guess ( i could easily be wrong) that they would have policies about not ordering various categories of product like maybe porn or many other items they deem inappropriate for their product ranges for the same reasons – i.e. the reputation of the franchise brand.
That is not a moral position in the same way not allowing MacDonald’s franchises to stock Whoppers is not a moral position – it is (or at least at its core is intended to be) just a straight commercial one.
Vote:July 1st, 2011 at 4:36 pm
I don’t care about the book, it doesn’t really interest me. I think others should be able to decide what they think of it for themselves without being interfered with by boycott censorship.
I just wonder what might happen if, instead of spending all this time and effort trying to ban a book that most of the boycotters wouldn’t have considered buying in the first place, all those thousands put the effort into trying to really address family violence and child abuse.
It’s a horse bolted book.
Vote:July 1st, 2011 at 5:25 pm
If Nicky Hager had written the book, would there be a different reaction. I think so.
I suspect quite a bit of this is about those who can’t stand Wishart.
Vote:July 1st, 2011 at 5:33 pm
mudrunner
“If Nicky Hager had written the book, would there be a different reaction. I think so.”
I think that you would find that there would be exactly the same reaction but by different people, namely those who cannot stand Nicky Hager
Vote:July 1st, 2011 at 7:02 pm
There are a few people with apparent superiority complexes around the place who have condemned the majority of people who clicked “like” on the Facebook page proposing the boycott as neanderathal, knuckle dragging, book burning fascists. That’s a long bow and is actually quite a pathetic argument. There are a small percentage of nutters, there always are whether it is at a rally, a cricket match or a concert.
There are also those who are obviously statistically challenged when they say a “small percentage” of Kiwis and come up with percentages like 0.05% of the population have supported the boycott site. Bullshit. Look at Ian Wishart’s page in support of the book.
http://www.facebook.com/pages/Break-the-Kahui-code-of-silence-support-the-new-book/184638478257810
287 supporters.
The boycott page has 46,233.
One of you whizzy statisticians can do the National extrapolation for me but it’s fucking huge.
Are you really trying to say that 0.62% of the people who have an opinion on Facebook are right and that 99.38% are morons? That’s a big call, even from an elitist, intellectual, Ayn Rand point of view.
Or are you trying to say that the vast majority of people who use Facebook are morons? I remember someone in history once saying “Let them eat cake”. It was probably a fairly well measured and honest statement from an intellectual point of view but it was still a tad insensitive.
In our society democracy includes pretty much everyone, including those who some might feel are inferior, uneducated, or otherwise challenged. I have to wonder which is the most dangerous group, those on Facebook or those who deride them? I know which group frightens me the most.
I don’t want the book banned, I believe in free speech. I also believe there isn’t a valid reason yet been given to justify the publication of it.
Exposing the seedy underbelly my arse. The vast majority of us have known about the seedy underbelly for years. Not from watching “Once Were Warriors” but from watching the regular trail of human train wrecks going through our legal system after bashing/maiming/killing some poor bloody partner, random victim, baby or toddler.
It has been debated to death on every blog, talkback show and newspaper column in the country for years. Sadly this Facebook site full of “morons” would be the first thing to cause something to actually happen.
Anyway, if you wanted to tell that sort of expose there are many hundreds of other cases that are closed that could have been picked. Any one of them would tell a very similar story and reveal the extent of the tragedy. The difference is none of those stories would be as controversial or garner so much publicity.
Vote:I disagree with what you want to read but I will defend to the death your right to read it. (To paraphrase someone a bit brighter than me.)
July 1st, 2011 at 7:36 pm
“Where is the right of a bookshop, owner-operated, to decide what he or she should stock based on its merits and local demand?”
Compelling evidence of the fuckwitedness of the weasel Wishart. Or is it just indicative of some self-serving greed?
Sign up to a franchise = contractual agreement. If you don’t like the restrictions then don’t sign up to the franchise.
Don’t sign up but open a non-franchised book store = sell any piece of crap you like, including ‘Breaking Wind or Whatever’.
Why doesn’t he write something really interesting like the consequences for creditors of bankrupts?
Vote:July 1st, 2011 at 7:42 pm
Bookseller chains have an absolute right to stock or not stock any book that is legally published and/or imported. They need not justify their decisions.
Who gives a F about facebook polls. Even if 100% of people wanted a shop to stock something, the shop can do what it likes, that’s what freedom is all about.
Only an idiot would demand that a shop stocked any particular book.
Just in case you had your brain switched off – this aforementioned book is not banned. It is available to anyone who wants it. Just perhaps not in your favourite shop. If you care so much about it, get off your chuff and go buy it elsewhere!
Vote:July 1st, 2011 at 7:42 pm
Ah. Possibly Wishart is waiting for the results of the litigation?
http://www.stuff.co.nz/business/money/5221082/Hubbards-Aorangi-investors-to-get-another-8-cents
Another demonstration on the streets of Timaru should clear matters up a little.
Hard to believe that an aviator of some renown still believes in fairy’s!
Vote:July 1st, 2011 at 7:50 pm
Kaya,
I do believe that there some 43000 people in NZ who do not want to see this book published, but their reasons for doing so may well be fallacious. A quick read of the facebook site shows a lot of people who do not wish to see her profit from the deaths of her own children. If she was, I would be in some agreement with the stand being taken, however,
This is not a book by King. This is a book by Ian Wishart, who interviewed King in the process.
By the way, read some of the facebook comments. Some of them are truly stunning in their ignorance.
https://www.facebook.com/home.php#!/pages/Boycott-the-Macsyna-King-Book/140832719326817
Vote:July 1st, 2011 at 8:01 pm
Davinci: you are disqualifed as this appears to be personal between you and Wishart. You go and write the book and take him on.
That’s freedom that is allowed to you.
@slightlyrighty “Imagine Once Were Warriors, but true.”
Well once were Warriors was based on the behavoir in the Ford Block in Rotorua and while the details may not be exact it was a fairly accurate picture of the life and times there, and of course more than a few other places in NZ. There still are places like that.
The baby in Rotorua that was rumbled in the clothes dryer and pegged to the line was another generation of that same Warrior mentality. Its Learned Behavior.
The more exposure this behavoir gets the better.
Vote:July 1st, 2011 at 8:05 pm
Kaya,
you are wrong, there is already a perfectly good reason for the book to be published: Ian Wishart has written it and wishes to publish it, and the content of the book is not in violation of any laws.
There is no other reason required.
The book will rise or fall on its own merits. Those who want to read it may, those who don’t are not required to. Those who choose to no longer shop at a bookshop that stocks the book are entirely within their rights, whilst those bookshops who wish to sell the book are within theirs also (subject to their franchise agreement).
That is free speech in action, and majority opinion in no way has any relevance to it.
Vote:July 1st, 2011 at 8:15 pm
“That is free speech in action, and majority opinion in no way has any relevance to it.”
Bear those prophetic words in action Fester, when the people (represented by their elected Minister, Simon Power) deal to all the greedy, legal aid scavengers who think if they stir up enough support they can continue their rort of the system to their own advantage.
Vote:July 1st, 2011 at 8:17 pm
Kaya
also believe there isn’t a valid reason yet been given to justify the publication of it.
I believe that there is no valid reason for Dan Brown ever to publish another book but I’m not everyone, many get great entertainment from his writing so more power to them.
The test of the boycott would be 46000 people donate $39 95 to a charity of their choice showing their good intentions.
I own a book by a convicted heroin dealer, should Dr. Newbolds book be banned?
I owna booked penned by Sonny Barger, do I support a motor cycle club because of this? duh
Vote:July 1st, 2011 at 8:30 pm
Paul
I don’t think you need worry too much about the good people on Facebook. Even though apparently 99% of those registering an opinion on the respective pro and anti pages are against the book, public opinion is simply irrelevant in this matter. All that matters is the commercial decision of the booksellers: should we stock this book? If they say no; case closed.
Vote:July 1st, 2011 at 8:37 pm
A straight commercial decision would deem it necessary that they do stock it , I buy a lot of books, I also buy the majority off shore unfortunately becuase the selection available here is pitiful and the chains wonder why they are not selling product.
Go the ladies at Unity Books, High Street Auckland, independent and brilliant
Vote:July 1st, 2011 at 8:51 pm
Paul
The booksellers are making a commercial decision: while they might earn a little from selling this book, they would appear to have weighed that against a possible loss of goodwill.
Vote:July 1st, 2011 at 9:06 pm
Sorry bollocks,
They sold Christopher Lewis’s rant , now that was a exercise in bad taste, the majority of the “boycotters” wouldn’t even know where their local Whitcoulls was.
This is a storm in a C Cup.
The only reason I wouldn’t stock it is that Wishart sells direct so he would be cutting my throat.
Vote:July 1st, 2011 at 11:49 pm
They will be losing goodwill by caving to pressure.
Vote:July 2nd, 2011 at 9:20 am
V2
I’ve never had anything to do with the little weasel nor has he ever cost me any money. But if you think he’s the ace investigative reporter then that’s more of a reflection on you than him.
My point is that he bleats about contractual restrictions placed on franchise booksellers. Nobody held a gun to their heads and forced them to enter into the franchise. They are not being oppressed or hard done by; simply observing contractual obligations they have entered into. Wishart seems to have a problem with people being bound by their contractual obligations. Why am I not surprised?
He has only turned up here to plug his penny thriller concocted on the basis of a 1:1 with an appalling mother, slapper and career bludger who has zero credibility as a reliable source.
I have no issue with Wishart writing this crap nor him choosing that source. Its par for the course. I don’t give a proverbial if anyone is stupid enough to but anything he writes, nor do I care if people decline to stock it as is their right. He can always find another way to peddle it. Nobody is stopping him from doing that.
Vote:July 2nd, 2011 at 9:36 am
thedavincimode,
I can assure you their franchise arrangement will include avenues for the franchisees to tell the franchisor what to do and the will include an expectation that books with sales potential will be made available to them.
Vote:July 2nd, 2011 at 11:38 am
You have misunderstood me. I said I don’t want the book banned, I believe in free speech
and, I disagree with what you want to read but I will defend to the death your right to read it.
I think it should be clear that I support the right to publish.
It was Wishart doing the justifying, not me. When I said there is no justification for the publication I was refuting his argument because it is bollocks to say he is doing it to help reveal the problems out there.
If he said “I am publishing it because I can” I would have said “yep, you’re right.” (Actually I wouldn’t have said anything because it’s a statement without room for retort.)
I agree with you, majority opinion SHOULD have no relevance and everyone who voted in the anti smacking referendum, those opposed to the ETS and those who voted to reduce the number of MPs to 100 (Just to name a few examples) would no doubt agree with that.
As you know, it doesn’t always work like that in the real world. I was very much looking forward to the second movie based on the Phillip Pullman trllogy “His Dark Materials”. (One of my favourite books) However the religious pressure lobby have prevented the second one being made.
The reality is many things influence events, opinions of majority groups (and minority) are just a couple of those. Money is usually the main one though.
Vote:July 2nd, 2011 at 7:24 pm
Like it is my right to chose whether to buy the book or not it is their right to choose whether to sell it. I have no issue with their decision
Vote:July 2nd, 2011 at 8:09 pm
Like it is my right to chose whether to buy the book or not it is their right to choose whether to sell it. I have no issue with their decision
That is not the issue, the issue is that pressure from f#cking morons led to the removal of this book from stock lists.
Since when has enabling f#cking morons been good for anything.
Vote:July 2nd, 2011 at 8:21 pm
“That is not the issue, the issue is that pressure from f#cking morons led to the removal of this book from stock lists.”
Really? And what is it that makes them morons? You disagreeing with them?
“Since when has enabling f#cking morons been good for anything.”
Call it one of the drawbacks of democracy. Oligarchy isn’t as good as the left like to think it is.
Vote:July 2nd, 2011 at 8:28 pm
Really? And what is it that makes them morons? You disagreeing with them?
No, it is because they threaten that they will ‘never return’ if a certain book is sold in a friggin bookshop!!
In other words, totally irrational f#cking morons.
This is really not complicated.
Vote:August 27th, 2011 at 8:31 pm
I found this on another web site. So this covers the answer to the timing of the realese of the book, this is copied from a stament by Wishart
“Normally we alert our customers well in advance of publication so they can get a guaranteed pre-order, but we didn’t because at that stage the Inquest was still holding hearings.”
“Unfortunately, we were required to give bookshops a month’s notice in advance of the new title, and one of those shops told a journalist at TVNZ and the rest, as they say, is history.”
So it wasn’t even him that went to realese the book at the time of the hearings, it was someone from a book store who went to the media.
The media is this country lack information reporting. We at home watching the TV only ever know a tiny little bit about stories in the media.
Now I do not at all disagree that what happened to those children is not wrong and disgusting, but before you go making threats to burn down book stores, people should know what they are talking about first and have all the facts, and that we cereinty don’t get on the 6 oclock news. And if we want to stop child abuse in Nz then maybe there is something that can be lerned from reading the book. I don’t believe anyone has the right to stop me from buying and reading that book as my right. The book shouldn’t be banned because an uninformed group of violent people threaten to burn book stores down. Even if you don’t plan to be violent the fact that you have said you will be is just as bad. You don’t beat violence with violence.
As long as the money is going to a charity and all Wishart is getting is a wages, as he is entiled to then hopefully maybe something good can come out of the boys deaths and the writting of this book in aid of stopping child abuse in this country.
Vote: