When Media Cheers Meet Legal Reality

The sour aftertaste of the tomato juice revolution

When we move to the arena of violence, the most brutal guys win – and that's not us.

Noam Chomsky

In March 2023, during a “Let Women Speak” event at Albert Park in Auckland, anti-trans activist Kellie-Jay Keen-Minshull, also known as Posie Parker, was assaulted by trans rights activist Eli Rubashkyn.

Rubashkyn poured a litre of what turned out to be tomato juice over Parker's head, also splashing another woman. Following the attack, Parker abandoned the event. In June this year, Rubashkyn pleaded guilty to two charges of assault related to the incident. Last week, though discharged without further punishment, the activist was convicted of assault..

That inevitable outcome contrasts quite dramatically with earlier media coverage. I would commend to all readers this Stuff news article, published after the event, that celebrated Rubashkyn’s actions without real hint of the fact a crime had been committed.

The article framed her as an "internet sensation" and hailed the tomato juice as "a new symbol for trans rights." It played down the incident’s criminal nature. Parker’s supporters’ claims that this was an attack were dismissed as an overreaction, with the article stating, “her supporters have characterised the incident as an assault,” as though the legal reality of the situation was up for debate.

Even Parker’s own response was used to trivialise the event, with the article quoting her as telling police, "I have food on me," while asserting she did not need an ambulance, implying that no real harm had been done. The idea that a crime had occurred was scarcely acknowledged in this initial coverage, which instead revelled in the viral nature of the incident. Readers who did not know better were left completely unaware of the fact that any unwanted and hostile physical interference with a person constitutes an assault.

Liz Gunn can confirm.

The tomato juice incident was an unmistakable act of political violence, irrespective of one's opinions about Parker. Physical aggression that silences a political opponent crosses the line from protest into coercion. Whether one agrees with Parker or finds her rhetoric deeply objectionable, the fact remains that using physical force to prevent someone from speaking is an assault ont he principles of pluralism.

It’s clear that Rubashkyn believed her actions were morally justified by her fear and contempt for Parker’s views. However, the norms that govern behaviour must apply equally to everyone. If one person feels entitled to act on their beliefs through physical force, others with opposing views will feel equally justified in doing the same - and you can’t control that.

So when you make violence an accepted form of political action, you cannot expect your opponents to restrain themselves from following the precedent you've set. That dog will not hunt. Worse still, your opponents will anticipate your next escalation and probably take things even further, pushing things into increasingly dangerous territory.

And because you can hardly disarm in the face of escalation, what begins as a smaller act can quickly spiral into more severe forms of violence, as each side justifies their actions as necessary to counter the other. In the end, the very methods you use to silence opposition can and will be turned against you.