'Average Kiwi bloke who snapped' narrative can get in the sea

Friday, 15 February 2019

CONTENT WARNING: Rape, sexual violence

OPINION: I read a story this week so disturbing I felt physically sick.

'Woman's life destroyed by brutal rape' was the headline.

It started: A woman who was raped repeatedly in a 30-minute attack so terrifying she feared she would die is now too afraid to go anywhere alone.

The woman, attacked randomly when she stopped at a public toilet at Waihola, south of Dunedin, was never able to share her pain with her family as her mother was unwell and she did not want to trouble them with her own suffering.

**READ MORE:

* Locker room talk shouldn't be brushed off

* Grateful for these great times while we have the chance

* Guys, we need to talk, and we need to listen

* Appreciating the value of shutting up and listening

* Goodbye Harry, and thanks for everything

* A ripple that has gathered irresistible momentum

* It's Israel Folau, and me, who need the forgiveness**

​Her mother died unaware of the horrific attack and her daughter's resulting torment, leaving the victim devastated.

'[I had] no chance to cry in her arms. This yin and yang are separated,' she said in a victim impact statement read to the Dunedin District Court by Detective Dave Checketts.

The statement said while she had previously been cheerful and optimistic, she was now cautious and would not go anywhere alone.

Sentencing Milton plumber Daniel Peter Moore, 34, to six and a half years in prison, Judge Michael Crosbie said the effects on the victim had been 'as profound as any I've ever read', telling Moore 'You preyed on her with devastating consequences'.

The victim had stopped on her way to Dunedin, when Moore pushed her into the toilet, grabbed her around the throat to stifle her screams and raped her repeatedly, subjecting her to 'a variety of violent sexual acts'.

There's not space to repeat the rest of the story here, but I'm sure you're as revolted as I was.

There's just one thing. You didn't read that version of the story this week, because I've just written it, or reframed it, to be more accurate.

You may recognise parts, because I used the details included by the reporter who wrote the original. I don't envy him having to sit through that harrowing case.

But there were several reasons I felt sick when I read that story; the terrible consequences for the victim, the callous, sustained brutality of the attack, and the way it was presented.

Starting with the headline. On one newspaper website it was: 'Rape in a Waihola public toilet: Married father's descent into sex attack.' On another, it read, 'Jailed for raping woman in Waihola public toilet'.

Between those two headlines, there's just one word referencing the victim, 'woman', but a couple describing the rapist, 'married father', and a hint of a story arc, a likely narrative, in the word 'descent', his descent.

It's no surprise, then, to see how the framing of the story unfolds.

'At 34 years old, married with kids, an unblemished criminal record, Milton plumber Daniel Peter Moore was an average Kiwi bloke.

'But on April 20 everything changed. 

'Moore was experiencing marital problems and had taken to parking up, drinking RTDs, smoking and playing on his phone, to avoid returning home.

'He had downed three bourbons when a woman making the trip from Queenstown to Dunedin pulled into the Waihola Domain.'

Four paragraphs describing the predator to start the story, and, like one headline, exactly one word about the victim: 'woman'.

We have a problem here. A massive one.

I'm cautious about publicly criticising other media. Heaven knows, the industry as a whole gets enough flak, informed or otherwise, and covering court can be a traumatic experience.

Strictly speaking, the story has both sides. 

But as I read it, searching for a substantive mention of the victim, my indignation grew.

That whole 'average-Kiwi-good-bloke-who-snapped-and-did-something-out-of-character' narrative can get right in the sea. The idea that he suddenly morphed into a monster on April 20 is a crock.

Where was the victim? Those early paragraphs, and some later, told the reader everything Daniel Moore had lost and I don't give a s***. Because he chose to do what he did, chose to give in to his perverse desires. I don't care that he's lost his career and his family because he deserved to! But at least two people have told me this week the framing of the story almost made it feel to them like Moore was the victim. Exactly!

What about what he took from his victim? Everything! Peace of mind, sense of security, cheerfulness. Not to mention the extreme pain she suffered as a result of subsequent procedures, not to mention, in all likelihood, her sense of shame, perhaps even blaming herself, not to mention the pain that will never go of not being able to cry in the arms of her obviously dearly-loved mother. Her life has been all but destroyed by the callous actions of a predator.

Not to mention, because the story doesn't make this entirely clear, that she must have had to summon up the courage to report this horrific crime, to be examined, to be questioned. I'm glad she did, many victims can't bring themselves to, and I'm glad she was believed, many victims aren't. I'm glad she got a measure of justice, but her own sentence is life. I just wish her story, her loss, her terror, had been reported front and centre.

Yes, Moore's picture was rightly there. The public needed to see that. But not right under a headline that all but ignored his victim.

Her story is the one that's been relegated, but her story, and stories like hers, need to be highlighted if we're going to get on top of our woeful rape culture.

Yes, we have one. Rape myths - like 'she was asking for it' - are perpetuated, victims face huge hurdles to justice, women feel unsafe through no fault of their own.

It's not good enough. It needs to change. Properly highlighting the plight of the victims would be a small step forward on a mission that must succeed.  

*Comments on this article are closed.