Thursday, 27 September 2012

Oppose the issuing of a visa to Mike Tyson


Danna Glendining is asking people to email the Minister of Immigration, Nathan Guy, your Member of Parliament, etc.to oppose the issuing of a visa to boxer Mike Tyson, who was convicted of rape in 1992. She says, "We need to support women who have been raped, and the issuing of a visa to Tyson would send the wrong message within New Zealand and abroad."

28 September - Too late. According to the Dom-Post this morning, he's on his way.
12 October - But of course, he wasn't. See the great post by Luddite Journo.

9 comments:

dad4justice said...

Please bleet too Ms Guy or Ms Key.

Good stuff Iron Mike.

catholicvstheworld said...

That's not a good message to send. Mike Tyson has *completely* changed his character since his heyday. He's not the vicious, misogynistic, take-no-prisoners person he once was. He's gone on the record to say that even his boxing achievements amount to nothing. His personal integrity and his virtue is all that matters to him now.

So no, I would support Mike Tyson's visa. Men and women in New Zealand could benefit from hearing about a man who fell so hard that the only way forward was up.

A Nonny Moose said...

Good stuff? GOOD STUFF? D4J, are you saying that Mike Tyson raping someone was a GOOD thing?

CvTW: Do we get to hear from his victim too? *slap forehead* Silly me. Reformed celebrity bad boy is SO much more important.

Anonymous said...

For what it's worth...

I don't think it's fair to judge someone forever for their behaviour. Especially when they have proven themselves to have changed as a person. This conviction was 20 years ago and you think it's fair to keep punishing him? I'm not saying the answer is to make him a role model (I certainly don't think he is) but to imply that forgiveness/compassion and understanding is the same thing as rape culture...Well I think you're wrong about that. It's definitely possible to give someone a second chance without condoning their behaviour.

I sure as hell wouldn't want people judging me against how I behaved 20 years ago.

me.

Simoon said...

The PM comments on the issue:
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10837697

A Nonny Moose said...

Strange ending to the story, considering it came out that LIFE Education Trust didn't invite him to come speak - it was a volunteer acting not on behalf of the Trust.

And Anon from Sat: Of course there's room for people who change, but Tyson has not. He has stood firm on his stance that he was not guilty, and shows no remorse for his crime.

LudditeJourno said...

The issue here is both do we believe people can do something horrible and later come to understand why that was not ok and genuinely seek to make amends as far as that is possible, for the people they hurt. Which for me, is yes.
And then - is that what Mike Tyson did in relation to rape? And the answer to that is emphatically no - he continues to speak publically about being "framed" and about the woman that we know he raped having been to blame. I'm glad he's not coming here, and horrified there is anyone excusing him or standing up for him - he is a rapist who continues to deny responsibility for raping. The most dangerous kind.

Anonymous said...

Tyson's rape conviction was as safe and solid as Peter Ellis one.......what was not at all.

Anonymous said...

@Anonymous - there is zero evidence to support claims against Peter Ellis but there is actually corroborating evidence to support claims that Mike Tyson raped someone. Corroboration in allegations of rape (due to the nature of the crime) is so rare, so the fact they are present in this case means there is virtually no grounds to believe his denial.

@A Nonny Moose - Whilst I appreciate what you're saying about his continued denial, I don't think it's fair to allow members of the public (myself included) the power to decide who is and isn't worthy of a second chance. Even if you continue to deny something, you aren't the same person twenty years after an event.

@LudditeJourno - I agree, but what is the more important issue: what he continues to think and feel about the rape, and whether he is likely to rape again? For me the latter is more important and he doesn't seem to have raped anyone else in the past two decades so it is most likely that behaviour will continue...on that basis I don't think he should be judged by how he acted in 1991.

me.