Posts by Eddie Clark
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
Grrrrr, pedant.
Lawyer with a grad degree. Same thing :P.
-
Thanks, Graeme. I knew that distinction was bunk but couldn't recall the precedent.
-
Steve:
If it were not for an exemption for the armed forces the forced wearing of a uniform would be against the Bill of Rights Act 1990.
Cite? Otherwise I call BS :).
-
And being part of that is belonging to the Student Association. Your argument is like "I want to join the Army but I will not wear that uniform"
You are driving in wide circles around the point. The two situations are not equivalent in the slightest. How does the wearing of a uniform infringe on fundamental rights and freedoms protected by the Bill of Rights Act 1990 in the same way that forcing someone to join an association they do not wish to join infringes on the right to freedom of association?
-
Edge is being Edge. I saw it for several years at law school (and in the years since). You're very rarely wrong about legal issues, Graeme, but you do have a tendency to pedantry around the edges (heh), rather than getting to the heart of the issue.
He's right, of course, in this case. As far as it goes, anyway. CSM is a prima facie breach of the right to freedom of association.
But, you then have to look at whether the limitation of the right is justified in a free and democratic society, to see whether it's actually a breach of the Bill of Rights Act. This, it seems to me, is where the debate should actually happen. There is a genuine argument to happen in this space - are the benefits provided by CSM sufficient to outweight the clear prima facie inconsistency with the right to freedom of association?
Graeme's stirring shit, as is his wont, but he's also copped an awful lot of unfair crap. On its face, CSM is just as much a breach of the right to freedom of association as, for example, banning the labour party. Its both short-sighted an legally incoherent to argue otherwise. Just because most posters here like CSM (myself included, with some serious reservations) doesn't make the compulsion any less odious. So by all means come up with arguments as to why there's a pressing necessity for compulsory unionism, but don't pretend it doesn't at least raise human rights questions.
-
Jesus, that photo of Baldock in the Herald. Joyous at the chance to hit his kids with stationery and cooking aparatus (his words "I'm not opposed to the wooden spoon or ruler..."). And, even more terrifyingly, his explanation for why the no voters wanted the law changed: "They want the authority back in the home..."
Authority back in the home? WTF? Patriarchal disicpline for all the lesser members of the household. I am not implying this in relation to any other no voters, but Baldock himself really sounds like he wants to smack more people than his kids.
-
Steve, I don't really have a dog in this fight, but your last sentence is not fair and, it seems to me, baseless:
- how do you know Mr Shera is an "expensive spin doctor"? My understanding is that he's an unpaid chair. And one can't throw the derisive term "spin doctor" at someone simply because they are a a lawyer?
- what basis do you have for disputing the statement that KidsCan is run to accepted, and in many cases best, practice? The Trust's accounts have been professionally audited and, unless Mr Shera is being outright untruthful, its approach has been endorsed by the Fundraising institute. -
Using the Don Brash definition of prejudice to say this:
I go out with a gaysian engineer, so I can't be prejudiced against any of those groups. That said, first year engineering students are the scariest group of 18 year olds I've ever come across. It terrifies me that they'll be building bridges and running power plants some time :P.
And may I suggest a Masters in Law - a year of (semi) idleness, the ability to research interesting things, and to go back to a job afterwards. Was the most fun I had in years.
-
Bob brockie had a good column on this (if worded somewhat provocatively).
-
Some big boards around the playing field - also help keep the ball in. But the top part of the boards could be glass, so they could still see.
Yes, but the boards and glass don't protect people who get in cabs with Patrick Kane, Kyle :P.
On Wishart - does anyone have an actual measure of how many people actually buy into his complete conspiracy theory insanity? He continually says he's a bestseller, but I'm vaguely convinced that it's a scam - somewhat like the way scientologists were instructed to buy up many many copies of Battlefield Earth so L Ron Hubbard looked like a bestseller.How many books and magazines does the man actually sell?