Hard News: The korero we've been waiting for
30 Responses
First ←Older Page 1 2 Newer→ Last
-
That was fabulous. Not so much for what was said (which I didn't disagree with at all, from anyone) but the way it was said. Thoughtful, respectful, reasoned - just an oasis of rationality, a healing balm. I tried to imagine McCoskrie in the korero and just couldn't. While I appreciate their perspective of "how will this work for Maori?" (and fair enough), a lot of what they were saying applies to Pakeha as well. Thanks for sharing this, Russell.
-
The discussion was also given structure by the results of a fascinating and well-designed poll, which found a striking 75% of Māori in favour of legalising and regulating cannabis.
Considering they've long been a swing bloc on the issue, it's significant. Cannabis law reform could well be this century's homosexual law reform.
-
I don't think the referendum has really captured the public imagination yet. There seem to a relatively small number of people who are passionately engaged in the issue one way or the other. But beyond that there have been crickets. Maybe that will change as the referendum draws closer. But bearing in mind it will be held at the same time as the general election, I am not confident about that. It could be that a big part of NZ just doesn't care that much either way.
-
andin, in reply to
It could be that a big part of NZ just doesn’t care that much either way.
Thats kind of a problem now with much in the political process as many vote in ignorance, going with whatever implicit bias they have, which will be exploited by the less scrupulous. Is winning more important that coming to a considered view now ?
-
Notably, an even greater proportion of respondents – 78% – want to be voting in 2020 on a law already passed by Parliament.
Doug Sellman, Simon Adamson and I met with MoJ about this a couple of weeks ago. We flatly told them that going into the referendum without a fully-formed plan would be a disaster. I'll continue to harp on this for the forseeable future.
-
Sacha, in reply to
Seriously, is MOJ planning on not planning? Who let them think that's acceptable?
-
Joe Boden, in reply to
Seriously, is MOJ planning on not planning? Who let them think that's acceptable?
They are planning on planning (along with MoH). However, I'm not sure that they are entirely confident that a fully formed plan will be available within the very tight time frame.
We've got about 18 months before the election, so the plan will have to be fully formed and in place within a year or so from now in order for the electorate to be fully informed.
-
Fortunately, though, Newshub/Three News is not rating highly and Duncan Garnet's scale of influence is therefore probably circumscribed by this. Added to which, McCoskrie is serioisly isolated on this issue - none of the other New Zealand social conservative isual suspects share his 'reefer madness' obsession, although Family First is a cod in a sea of guppies insofar as those pressure groups are concerned. The problem is, the MagicTalk/Herald/Newshub axis gives him more publicity and less critical scrutiny than he deserves.
-
While I strongly disagree with Garner on this and many things - TV3 including the 6pm bulletin just passed TV1 in the ratings, for the first time ever I believe.
Think what you like about ratings (I can take or leave them!) - but Newshub/Three News is rating very highly.
-
andin, in reply to
Newshub/Three News is not rating highly
Newshub/Three News is rating very highly.
?
-
Given increasing market fragmentation, “rating highly” isn't very informative by itself, as even the first-ranked programme may not hold a very large proportion of the potential audience. If 3 News is outranking 1 News, does that mean TV3 is increasing its actual % of viewers, or is its market share merely decreasing slower than TV1’s?
-
Russell Brown, in reply to
They are planning on planning (along with MoH). However, I'm not sure that they are entirely confident that a fully formed plan will be available within the very tight time frame.
That's alarming. I'd formed the impression that they were making reasonable progress.
-
Joe Boden, in reply to
That's alarming. I'd formed the impression that they were making reasonable progress.
Things looked a little better to me after I attended the summer school event in Wellington last week, but there is definitely some cause for concern.
-
We're being visited by one Dr Ben Cort, associated with groups like Smart Approaches to Marijuana, funded by a conservative corporate called Coachella, which used to bankroll anti-LGBT organisations opposed to marriage equality and transgender rights.
-
andin, in reply to
Does he have tour dates and it better be free admission, cause I'd like to go along and throw rotten eggs at him.
I wasnt going to pay $150+ for the same pleasure at that Canadian cretin JP's nonsense I dreamt up tour. -
I see Family First imported him, as I thought. The details are probably on their website…http://www.familyfirst.org.nz
Ah. Nope, but it is here...: https://www.rhema.co.nz/shows-djs/days/item/10959-marijuana-debate
-
andin, in reply to
Pity they dont bring out this guy...fat chance.
-
The korero we’ve been waiting for…
…another one that’s long over due is whether The Crusaders can continue under that barbaric ‘brand’.We have left childish things behind – celebrating a squad of ’sword-wielding Saracen slayers’ is not a role model for a well, caring and connected city.
Hopefully the leaders at CRFU and the wider rugby community can see the sense, and the strong message, such a progressive move would send.That’s the future I’d like to live in…
The CrushAdders has a strong local and Kiwi feel to it… -
The Crusaders
Stuff had this once over lightly explanation of the Crusades, It would make Trump proud it was so white washed.
"The Crusades were a series of religious wars between Christians and Muslims started primarily to secure control of holy sites considered sacred by both groups. In all, eight major Crusade expeditions occurred between 1096 and 1291."The Crusades all originated out of Europe led by christians The first one originated out of Germany.
Islam had taken the "holy land" from Roman control in 637 allowing Jews to worship there something prohibited since Rome took control circa 80.
Centuries after the fact christians whipped themselves into a frenzy and set off to drive out the "infidel". Any so called christian sacred sites were well and truly gone or built over. There was no need for any of what ensued, 200 yrs of on/off wars. Instead of trying to give a potted history fucking Stuff could just tell readers to go to a library and educate themselves. -
andin, in reply to
And Stuff has another go and get it wrong.
"The Crusades were a series of conflicts that included wars between Christians and Muslims in the Mediterranean that started about a thousand years ago. The Crusades were estimated to have resulted in between one and two million deaths"
FFS will some one there do some fucking research.
"in the Mediterranean"? Honestly? ever heard of Jerusalem? Conflicts? try invasion by christian zealots. And as no one there has a clue the first invasion was as much anti semitic as it was anti islam, 'cause for a few centuries the lie that Jews were somehow complicit in the death of the "son of god" had been spoon fed to an illiterate population. Another thing to thank the RC church for. -
Measured response from the Crusaders (as reported by DomPost 18/3/19: p2):
For us, the Crusaders name is a reflection of the crusading spirit of the community. What we stand for is the opposite of what happened in Christchurch on Friday; our crusade is one for peace, unity, inclusiveness and community spirit. In our view, this is a conversation that we should have and we are taking on board all of the feedback that we are receiving. However, we also believe that the time is not right now.
N.B. — similarly to crusade , jihad is not exclusively or primarily intended to refer to a violent struggle. In both cases, I don’t think we should allow our perceptions of meaning to be distorted by those who do apply such terms as metaphors for violence.
-
andin, in reply to
In its best interpretation jihad is the internal/introspective struggle in the individual against ones baser? instincts.Crusade will always have negative associations for some adherents of Islam because of history. A crusade for peace just sounds like an oxymoron to me, dont know about anyone else.
-
Ian Dalziel, in reply to
I don’t think we should allow our perceptions of meaning to be distorted by those who do apply such terms as metaphors for violence.
The Crusaders also said*:
""In terms of the Crusaders name, we acknowledge and understand the concerns that have been raised. For us, the Crusaders name is a reflection of the crusading spirit of this community, and certainly not a religious statement. What we stand for is the opposite of what happened in Christchurch yesterday; our crusade is one for peace, unity, inclusiveness and community spirit."
Yet the part of the Crusading Spirit they glorify is sword-wielding knights on horses both festooned in Templar Crosses (aka highly charged religious symbology) - not quite sure how that gets their 'peace, unity, inclusiveness and community spirit' message across...
I'm afraid they embrace the noun not the verb.
Etymology reveals an inherent religious connotation:Crusade ORIGIN late 16th cent. (originally as croisade): from French croisade, an alteration (influenced by Spanish cruzado) of earlier croisée, literally ‘the state of being marked with the cross,’ based on Latin crux, cruc- ‘cross’; in the 17th cent. the form crusado, from Spanish cruzado, was introduced; the blending of these two forms led to.
also worth noting that the original Crusade by Europeans to recover the Holy Land from the Muslims continues to this day.
-
linger, in reply to
The Crusaders' response is indeed a little disingenuous given that the names of sports teams are often very deliberately chosen to connote martial spirit (Warriors, Saracens [who you'd think would have the same issue, plus cultural appropriation]), danger (Hurricanes) or predatory attackers (Lions, Sharks, Makos…). Such name choices are transparently a branding exercise about being seen as a viable threat to competitors. Though it's understandable the Crusaders management wouldn't want to own up to that intent at the moment.
If the Crusaders do want to change their name but stay in the same semantic field, they do have other entirely nonviolent options. Canterbury Pilgrims, for example.
-
linger, in reply to
And yet we regard "crusading journalism" — directed by a moral compass — as a good thing.
Post your response…
This topic is closed.