Discussion: Uncivil Rights

158 Responses

First ←Older Page 1 2 3 4 5 7 Newer→ Last

  • Craig Ranapia,

    I don't agree with the Libz on many things, but Lindsay Perigo hit the nail on the head with a surprising daisy-cutter on the Roundtable:

    What is it about long term exposure to Ayn Rand that causes Tourette's?

    North Shore, Auckland • Since Nov 2006 • 12370 posts Report Reply

  • Sofie Bribiesca,

    I can say I wrote stuff about it when it was proposed, when it passed its first reading,

    @Felix
    (with dueish respec')
    Oh I think many of us are all aware. Unfortunately it will take a sensationalist article to receive attention that it due deserves. RB is extremely quick to bring such things to our attention and often is a first to write /enquire about the tenacity of this NatMUF Act government that we have been laden with. I just wish you journos gave this farce the scrutiny it deserves and then maybe this reactionary government might just follow due process. Seeing as they bend to certain media. Plus yes, not many of us like it.As some realise it probably wont hurt them, but this is yet another piece of legislation inconsiderate of the human rights that we are entitled to.

    here and there. • Since Nov 2007 • 6796 posts Report Reply

  • Felix Marwick,

    @sofie

    What I try to do is report the political process. It's up to the audience to determine what they want to do about the information presented to them.

    I sometimes find it interesting that people in my line of work get blamed for the way we cover political policies and legislation - that we've failed to bring it to the public's attention.

    May I posit an alternative view?

    Invariably we do write/cover the issues but they're largely ignored by most people who, for one reason or another, simply don't care about politics. As a rule I prefer to put the information out there as objectively as I can. It's for the public to make up their own minds about it and take action as they see fit.

    As a rule I try to steer clear of advocacy journalism. I'm not saying it's a bad thing as it works for some of my peers. But my personal view is to take a side just makes you an unpaid PR person for a certain agenda. My preference is to challenge those who present an issue to defend their position. Ditto for their opponents. Present the arguments and let the listeners/readers decide for themselves.

    Another thing (and this is just an observation) I do notice that people to tend to criticise the media when the stories they present clash with their own personal views. For all the accusations of bias that are levelled at journalists I think you could make an argument that some of it stems from the beliefs/biases inherent in the people making the accusation.

    I mean, depending on who you talk to or whose blog you read, most reporters are invariably labelled as right wing stooges, or left wing apologists.

    Apologies for the lengthy rant but I just wanted to say a few words and try to give a journalist's perspective given some of the criticisms levelled. Thanks for the forbearance.

    Wellington • Since Nov 2006 • 200 posts Report Reply

  • Sofie Bribiesca,

    Apologies for the lengthy rant but I just wanted to say a few words and try to give a journalist's perspective given some of the criticisms levelled. Thanks for the forbearance.

    I dont need any, but is that your opinion? If so, admirable.As you were. I just call how I feel.

    here and there. • Since Nov 2007 • 6796 posts Report Reply

  • Kyle Matthews,

    Invariably we do write/cover the issues but they're largely ignored by most people who, for one reason or another, simply don't care about politics.

    That's a fair comment Felix. I think some of the concern is the amount of attention and placement that the media give some issues. Obviously that's not always something a journalist can control.

    Since Nov 2006 • 6243 posts Report Reply

  • Craig Ranapia,

    I mean, depending on who you talk to or whose blog you read, most reporters are invariably labelled as right wing stooges, or left wing apologists.

    And there's an argument that if you're pissing off both the loony left and the rabid-right wings of the nut-o-sphere, you're probably getting it just about right. :)

    North Shore, Auckland • Since Nov 2006 • 12370 posts Report Reply

  • tussock,

    Just fork up the documentation? Really? Employers leave, businesses close, no records are required past seven years or something anyway. People can inherit substantial money and property, how long does the public trust or your lawyers keep that info? How do you prove how long you've had an older asset that isn't normally registered with the state? How do you prove work done to improve a house was DIY? How do you prove gifts?

    Do we have to track down dozens of people from years ago for affidavits? Will that even be possible?

    How the hell is any of that supposed to work? Maybe some people keep a paper trail for all their valuable knick-knacks, but I sure don't.

    There's a bloody good reason the state is supposed to prove you stole something: proving you fairly earned and bought everything in your possession would be ridiculous, if they can just tot up what you can't prove and take it, we're all fucked.

    Since Nov 2006 • 611 posts Report Reply

  • Matthew Poole,

    tussock, if you can prove income for the last few years, and what's on your asset sheet is roughly in line with what someone of your age and income would own, you're very likely going to win a balance of probabilities test just on that basis.
    You don't need to prove lineage of every last asset. You just need to prove, to a better level than the investigations of the Police have established, that your assets are in your possession by legitimate means. That is not hard! They can't "just tot up what you can't prove and take it", that's not how it works. Yet a-fucking-gain, the intent of the law is not to chase innocent taxpayers who happen to have got on the wrong side of a cop. It's to go after criminals who have significant income from things like drug manufacturing. The courts are required to interpret the law as a whole, and also to consider Parliament's intent behind the passage of the law. I would strongly advise reading this thread in its entirety.

    Auckland • Since Mar 2007 • 4097 posts Report Reply

  • Kumara Republic,

    Seems the police believe whatever they like

    And no sign of the AAG so far. I've said it before, but do they only come out of the woodwork with a brown paper bag testing kit?

    The southernmost capital … • Since Nov 2006 • 5446 posts Report Reply

  • Just thinking,

    Please critique.


    A guide to ethical activism:
    in the age of terror.

    The need to present a guide to ethical activism is to bridge the understandings of actions and intent between activism and wider public perceptions. These truths are extensively known and used in activist communities in New Zealand and the world today, but could constitute Terrorism under the New Zealands Terrorism Suppression Act.


    What is ethical activism?

    It is action taken to raise awareness or protest an issue in an ethical way, such as a rally or protest march.

    This is also an attempt at redefining Passive Resistance as it is an unhelpful term in our new age.


    Is it ethical if the act is illegal?

    Yes, as long as it is done with dignity and respect.

    A sit-in stopping the transport of a product, such as products made by slave labour or materials New Zealand has signed international agreements not to use.

    The action may be illegal by stopping the transport but it is ethical.


    What is meant by dignity and respect?

    There is no need for abuse or denigration of the other.

    At no stage is it ethical to assault another human being, verbally or physically.

    If arrested for being involved in an ethical action, it doesn't assist the cause to abuse the Police. The arrest will happen and follow the normal procedure.

    So too, if a person was to get a parking ticket for staying 10minutes over the stated time because of an extraordinary reason (i.e. performing CPR) , it is not dignified or respectful to take it out on the Parking Warden. Take it up with the office in a respectful manner. When that fails (as it surely will), make your case in court, but be prepared to pay the ticket. (A bad example as we know all activists are cyclists, but I couldn't think of a cycle helmet example :).


    Can vandalism be an ethical act?

    Yes, it can be.

    Most recently the ANZAC Ploughshares entry into the Waihopai Spy Base culminated in popping one of the two balloons over the satellite dish, using sickles.

    The ethical action of the ANZAC Ploughshares, trespass onto a 'secured' base, popping the balloon, and use of sickles, are all consistent with ethical activism.

    The vandalism they performed was symbolic and did not hinder the operation of the spy base. It was an ethical act of protest. Their clearly stated position was that it was for New Zealand to decide if this base should operate. The use of sickles is intrinsic to the symbolism of the ANZAC Ploughshares. They take their name from the biblical passage Isaiah 2:4 “They will hammer their swords into ploughshares and their spears into sickles.” At no stage was the sickle used as a weapon. To this point, even the choice of timber used for placards should be of low grade, so as to limit the likely hood of inflated criminal charges.

    Putaringamotu • Since Apr 2009 • 1158 posts Report Reply

  • dubmugga,

    i'm thinking its probably ethical then, to let someones tyres down but not to puncture them...

    the back of your mind • Since Nov 2006 • 257 posts Report Reply

  • Just thinking,

    It can be with a few conditions.
    Safety first - make sure they're aware of your action and that no-one is in danger as a result of it.
    In order to be an ethical action, there must be an ethical reason.
    You must be there to take responsibility for your action.

    Putaringamotu • Since Apr 2009 • 1158 posts Report Reply

  • dubmugga,

    well i saw the same hi lux and trailer launch their boat by driving across the estuary after leaving a note the last time saying much appreciated if they didnt.

    so this time i left a note saying next time i'm going to let down your tyres if i catch you doing it again.

    the back of your mind • Since Nov 2006 • 257 posts Report Reply

  • Kyle Matthews,

    The vandalism they performed was symbolic and did not hinder the operation of the spy base. It was an ethical act of protest.

    I don't think the action was symbolic at all, it damaged an expensive piece of equipment - the sheath that hides and protects the dish. Wish they'd had a go at the dish themselves myself, that's the sword/spear.

    "Did not hinder" implies that this is a requirement for it to be an ethical act of protest, which you clearly don't believe. Clearly there are times when hindering the activity could be ethical.

    Since Nov 2006 • 6243 posts Report Reply

  • Just thinking,

    dubmugga - I take it this is an individual and their personal possesion of a car? As such they're not targeted for Ethical Action (Passive Resisance).
    It needs to be "The Man", and property as oppossed to possesions that are targeted.
    Your aims can be achieved by a photograph with a time/date function of the tracks & license plate passed onto the governing body/media.

    Kyle - cheers.

    Putaringamotu • Since Apr 2009 • 1158 posts Report Reply

  • Stewart,

    It sounds like it would be OK to liberate the air from the confinement of the tyres - strike a blow for freedom.

    Te Ika A Maui - Whakatane… • Since Oct 2008 • 577 posts Report Reply

  • Steve Barnes,

    You could let the air out of his tyres and re-inflate them without him knowing.
    ;-)
    But Seriously, what is wrong with putting up a sign?. You would be surprised how many people just obey signs.

    Peria • Since Dec 2006 • 5521 posts Report Reply

  • Steve Barnes,

    Or a sign like this?
    Or maybe this?

    Peria • Since Dec 2006 • 5521 posts Report Reply

  • Steve Barnes,

    Peria • Since Dec 2006 • 5521 posts Report Reply

  • dubmugga,

    general consensus even upon talking to some boaties is a sign of some description. i got an appointment to meet nick smith 4th of december.

    ideally what would be good is a national standard sign for use on all public beaches/estuaries of historical note

    the back of your mind • Since Nov 2006 • 257 posts Report Reply

  • Joe Wylie,

    a national standard sign for use on all public beaches/estuaries of historical note

    All others get this.

    flat earth • Since Jan 2007 • 4593 posts Report Reply

  • Ian Dalziel,

    (re)inventing the stop sign...
    I posted this movie link yonks ago
    still worth a revisit (feel the fear...)

    stop sign design by committee

    and this one is for Graham Reid's last blog (and has the same movie too) a one stop stop stop </stop>

    Christchurch • Since Dec 2006 • 7953 posts Report Reply

  • dubmugga,

    the back of your mind • Since Nov 2006 • 257 posts Report Reply

  • Just thinking,

    I've posted this elsewhere on pas but it is better here.

    I respected Warren Tucker for his openess in dealings with the spying on 11yr old girls etc.

    But this is a bit WTF?

    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10609858

    Putaringamotu • Since Apr 2009 • 1158 posts Report Reply

  • Just thinking,

    Not quite civil rights, but the bar is high to get a conviction, rightly so.
    I can't help thinking his position as a cop and hers as a prostitute played a part in the other two charges failing.

    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10609818

    Putaringamotu • Since Apr 2009 • 1158 posts Report Reply

First ←Older Page 1 2 3 4 5 7 Newer→ Last

Post your response…

Please sign in using your Public Address credentials…

Login

You may also create an account or retrieve your password.