Editorial Tuesday June 3, 2014

Peter Jackson, editor, The Northland Age

ANYONE who has ever been burgled probably knows where Charlize Theron was coming from when she likened media intrusion into her private life to rape. And they are probably not amongst those who are baying for the South African-born actress' blood, or at least an apology.

It isn't difficult to imagine the huge impact the media, from the paparazzi to Facebook, can have on the lives of those who achieve celebrity. The late perhaps great Michael Jackson used to go shopping in the wee small hours, after stores, malls or whatever had been sealed off from the hoi polloi. According to a television documentary that screened some years ago he would moonwalk through the place, pointing at whatever took his fancy, then return to his prison and wait for his purchases to be delivered.

Cricketing legend Sachan Tendulkar couldn't move in India (and probably still can't) without attracting huge crowds. Even team meetings had to be organised with military secrecy, the mere rumour of his presence at any given location creating mayhem.

New Zealand, it has been said, comes as something of a blessed relief to some of these people, in that spotting a famous face does not generally lead to mass hysteria. By and large, however, those who gain celebrity can say goodbye to anything resembling a normal life. And to any chance of keeping the little, personal secrets that we all have.

Charlize Theron raised hackles amongst the easily offended during an interview in Britain, where her interviewer commented that Google had thrown up all sorts of gossip about her, including her love life, her appearance and her children. Her response: 'I don't do that. When you start living in that world, and doing that, you, start, I guess, feeling raped.

'When it comes to your son and your private life ... some people might relish in all that stuff ... but there are certain things in my life that I think of as very sacred and I'm very protective over them.' The reaction was swift and outraged. Quoted as coming from that most nebulous of quarters, 'online communities' (which amongst other things means anonymous - for the most easily outraged courage is no longer needed) Theron was accused of insensitivity and trivialising sexual assault, some pointing out that living in the public eye was a choice, while rape was not.

No one is going to argue with that, but those who have taken offence haven't given Theron's view a great deal of intelligent or sympathetic thought. She should at least have the understanding of those whose lives have been intruded upon by others, even far short of sexual assault.

The writer's home was burgled once, or more accurately five times in three months, twice while the occupants were asleep. The local kids obviously came to regard it as offering easy pickings. On the fifth occasion a neighbour caught the would-be burglar climbing through a window, held her and called the police. She duly appeared in court charged with being unlawfully on a property, the judge agreeing with the police prosecutor that it had been a victimless crime and granting her diversion, contrary to the proper process.

A complaint to the prosecutor saw her returned to the dock, where the diversion order was withdrawn and she was handed a minimal sentence. (The police prosecutor in Kaitaia in those days offered diversion to all and sundry barring serial killers without first gaining the approval of the victim, as he was legally bound to do. That is clearly no longer the case).

The thieves were obviously young, given the point of entry to the house and what they took. Alcohol was popular, but they also took jewellery, watches, and on one occasion a tube of toothpaste. Good to know that personal hygiene is important to those who are reduced to stealing. The writer can also confirm that, lovely, intelligent animals they might be, but basset hounds do not make great guard dogs.

The point, however, is that each of those burglaries was keenly felt as a gross invasion of the family's lives. The first four occasions did not result in arrests, although a piece of jewellery was recovered when the aunt of a local child wore it to the police station whilst accompanying another child, who had come to attention over something else, and it was recognised. She should have been charged with receiving, but wasn't. Those days were not the Kaitaia police prosecution's finest.

Others have suffered more. A young woman Kaitaia woman refused to return to the bedroom that was looted by thieves while she was at work some years ago. There was never any suggestion that she was at any personal risk from intruders, but the emotional damage done to her was real and significant.

Can those reactions to burglary be likened to the aftermath of rape? No they can't, but it should be recognised that thieves inflict harm that goes far beyond the loss of possessions. Just as it might be recognised that those who trade, for profit or perversion, in the minutiae of the daily lives of celebrities, and make that information available on a global scale, do harm.

Some would have no difficulty understanding the use of the word 'rape' to describe the violation that so many celebrities seem to suffer.

And isn't it ironic that the easily offended should resort to semantics to justify their outrage at a time when the rules of language are all but universally ignored? But even semantics doesn't offer much of a refuge. The fundamental definition of rape is the one we are all familiar with, but it can also cover behaviour such as pillaging, which perhaps is why we still talk about the raping of resources, without, so far, incurring the wrath of the lunatic fringe. Charlize Theron and others like her would be perfectly justified in claiming that their personal lives have been pillaged, and might be equally justified in describing the unwanted attention they receive as rape.

It isn't only the rich and famous who are discovering how easily some people are offended these days though. Some years ago a complaint against this newspaper with the Press Council for having the temerity to publish the phrase 'Ladies a plate.' The defence was that the phrase was only published on request, and that it remained in common use by and inoffensive to a generation who had grown up with it, understood it and accepted it as a standard if old-fashioned condition of admission to a function. The Press Council accepted that, albeit not unanimously, and the Age got away with a stern ticking off.

As the English language continues to evolve, people who request notification of a function via this newspaper these days tend to request a contribution towards supper without specifying that men are exempt, so we can all sleep a little more easily. Those who enjoy being outraged should feast their eyes on Facebook though, and see not only what Charlize Theron is trying to protect herself and her family from but just how far civilisation has travelled on its descent to hell in a handcart. There really is some ghastly stuff there, some of it emanating from this very community, more than enough for those who are presumably claiming to be upholding standards and defending the victims among us to experience justifiable apoplexy, as opposed to the manufactured variety inspired by this storm in a tea cup.