Legal Beagle: The Inexorable Advance
289 Responses
First ←Older Page 1 … 5 6 7 8 9 … 12 Newer→ Last
-
I don't know, but certainly not because the New Zealand Parliament passed a law giving him the power to require you to fund him.
FFS Graeme. It is Douglas that is using Parliament to push through yet another of ACT's pet policies. The bill is to make democratically decided compulsory membership ILLEGAL. Earlier up thread you came out with a most astoundingly dumb argument based on "Freedom FROM religion" that is like trying to prove a negative and as a lawyer, you should know where that leads.
I keep thinking of Niemöller here. First they came for the students...You're basing your argument on a fallacy. The right of "Freedom of Association" is there to protect us from those that will not allow us to gather together and fight back against oppression. It is not there to allow us the right to not have to have anything to do with annoying people. Douglas's amendment is oppressive in that it removes power from students by putting that final nail in the coffin they constructed last time they had power.
Your take on "Freedom of Association" has been picked up on by others but you refuse or maybe just can't, to see.
The logic behind your stance would allow schools to refuse admission to "other" kids because "normal" kids would be forced to associate with them.
I still think you're winding us up, you are not that stupid. -
I keep thinking of Niemöller here. First they came for the students...
I keep thinking the poor fucker must be twirling in his grave, wishing he'd never opened his mouth. When it comes to astoundingly stupid (and borderline offensive) false equivalences, Graeme's not the one with the problem.
I'm off to watch Jon Stewart's masterly Fox News: The New Liberals one more time.
-
The former, dude, the former.
I figured (for most people anyway...).
What follows is the rather simple question:
"Why?"
and the question I've repeated a few times that encapsulates what's necessary:
"What is the compelling state interest to be advanced by giving associations of students the power to compel others to join them?
-
Well Craig, there are none so blind as those that refuse to see.
Go and watch Jon Stewart again, you may pick up a few clues. -
"What is the compelling state interest to be advanced by giving associations of students the power to compel others to join them?
It's been answered ad nauseam, you're just not paying attention.
-
false equivalences
Pot. Kettle. Black. You know the rest.
"What is the compelling state interest to be advanced by giving associations of students the power to compel others to join them?
The advancement of knowledge and the dissemination and maintenance thereof by teaching and research is I believe the standard terminology.
-
"What is the compelling state interest to be advanced by giving associations of students the power to compel others to join them?
There is no compulsion to participate, which is where your Church analogy falls down. The association exists for the common good of all students at that institution whether they participate or not, the fact that it costs money to run such an association is beside the point, perhaps we should be looking at Govt. funding instead of abolition by stealth.
"The difference between the left and the right is the left wants freedom for you where as the right wants freedom for me."
Anon. -
Well Craig, there are none so blind as those that refuse to see.
And there are few more offensively stupid than those who view the Third Reich as nothing more than an occasion for cheap and spectacularly ignorant put-downs.
-
You should be asking:
"What is the compelling state interest to be advanced by removing from associations of students the power to compel others to join them?"
Because that is what the bill is advocating.If it ain't broke, don't fix it.
-
The right of "Freedom of Association" is there to protect us from those that will not allow us to gather together and fight back against oppression. It is not there to allow us the right to not have to have anything to do with annoying people.
And the right to freedom of speech is there for pretty much the same reason. But that doesn't mean it doesn't protect really offensive pornography (US case), and hate speech (NZ case).
The logic behind your stance would allow schools to refuse admission to "other" kids because "normal" kids would be forced to associate with them.
No it wouldn't. Even if you can argue that freedom of association is implicated in such cases, that would give rise to:
1. a justified limitation.
2. a conflict of rights - specifically with section 19 - the right to freedom from discrimination. -
Pot. Kettle. Black. You know the rest.
That's right, Keir. I'm the one around here comparing VSM to the Nazi Party banning trade unions and opposition political parties.
-
And there are few more offensively stupid than those who view the Third Reich as nothing more than an occasion for cheap and spectacularly ignorant put-downs.
So why do you spend so much time on KiwiBlog?.
-
It was always darkly amusing watching naive young students who had voted for VSM suddenly faced with the consequences of their actions. "Hang on, where have all the student services gone? Why does everything suddenly suck?" It was like an inadvertent lesson in the benefits of unionism.
Unfortunately, because of the transient nature of student populations, the next generation in three years wouldn't even know what they were missing out on.
Which, by the way, is an utterly incompetent lapdog of the administration, and currently appears to be so far up the arse of Peter Dunne it isn't funny, so hardly a hotbed of lefty radicalism.
Ironically, UCSA would be one of the students associations that would find it easiest to survive under VSM. At some time in the distant past they purchased a forest and they get a significant annual income from road access rights and forestry.
Equally, I'd have no problem with an employer saying they'd only employ staff who are members of a union (however unusual that may be). CSM however, is like a government department saying they will only employ staff who are members of a union - outrageous.
Universities will fight tooth and nail before you get to claim them as government departments. There's a debate going on between them and the government as to their exact nature, but certainly they consider themselves to be independent bodies.
I may have missed something but can someone explain why this Bill is a parliamentary process, not one at university level?
Because most significant students associations won the battle in 1999 (only Auckland and Waikato went voluntary, Waikato has since gone back). Grass level advocates of VSM know that they won't win a referendum on the issue, and its much easier to just chop off the head and put a bill through parliament which over rides what universities and student bodies want, and make them all voluntary.
As I pointed out upthread, "historically" Oxford and many other universities have chosen to exclude women, place a religious qualification on admission, and required dons to be unmarried and at least ostensibly celibate. I think anyone who tried to justify any of the above on historical grounds would get extremely short shift.
Because those three things are equivalent with compulsory student membership, honest.
Labour's Grant Robertson was OUSA president in '94 and co-pres of NZUSA in '95, so I expect he'll be mulling over how to attack the bill in the house.
Grant was OUSA President in 1993. Adrian Reeve was President in 1994, his primary contribution to student politics was selling weed from his office (I'd struggle to think of a right-wing President that has been much good in the past 20 years of OUSA's history).
-
fighting over small potatoes (compared to say, equal pay for women)
Women still don't have equal pay. We don't have a pay equity unit.
-
No, you're the one comparing universal student membership to the Test Acts & the exclusion of women, ffs.
(And I would have been far more willing to cut slack if you'd shown any sign of engaging with the reasons those are bad comparisons; it looks very much to me like arguing by connotation.)
-
So why do you spend so much time on KiwiBlog?
Steve: For the sake of my own blood pressure, and to avoid further enabling your idiotic Godwin de-rail, I'm going to ignore you now.
-
As a current undergrad, i pay compulsory SA fees and that's ok with me. I don't buy your arguments about freedom of association and Bill of Rights etc, because that brand of "freedom" is individualism. On the page, it looks like freedom, and sounds like freedom when you talk about it, but in reality it isn't. Individuals are simply not equal. The only freedom attainable here is that of privileged persons to cement their privilege and use the corrupted term "freedom" to con everybody else into believing they're liberated and have choice, when in fact they've just been isolated and stripped of power.
In the context of student associations, like so many other situations, it's when the shit hits the fan that you need them. One example: we currently get free medical care, that's a huge bonus for students and if the university took that away, who would fight for it, if there was an apathetic, unrepresentative SA? Because that's what voluntarism would do - give universities the advantage of saying that SA's only represented a small number of students, not all, so why should they listen?
Russell's point earlier about his son's education - the Education Act says plainly that everyone is entitled to an education and a FREE one at that to the age of 18. Yet every school in the country charges fees of one sort or another and children who "don't fit' mainstream get hustled out of school all the time. Our own government and Ministry of Education can't even get their shit together to adhere to the law. Whose freedom is that?
-
Craig, dear god, you just said that calling an actual straight up fucking merchant banker an usurer `had unfortunate anti-semitic connotations' & now you lecture others about Godwin. Do you have no fucking shame?
-
The Godwin was all your's Craig. Do you really not understand Niemöller?.
-
The advancement of knowledge and the dissemination and maintenance thereof by teaching and research is I believe the standard terminology.
I'm pretty sure I'm not arguing against the existence of universities.
There is no compulsion to participate, which is where your Church analogy falls down.
My church analogy - which I explicitly note in the original post is flawed - isn't particularly important. However, I would note that there is no compulsion in universal membership of a state church. You don't have to attend, you can join another church as well, believe whatever you want, etc.
If it ain't broke, don't fix it.
Parliament doesn't need to point to a compelling state interest to pass laws - this is a democracy; it only needs to point to a compelling state interest to have laws which infringe upon guaranteed human rights - which makes us a liberal democracy.
Also, as I noted in my original post:
I do not pretend that voluntary membership will be a panacea for the ills faced by students' associations, or students, or tertiary education. It is not supposed to be – this isn't about fixing something...
That said, there in fact does happen to be a compelling state interest to be advanced: advancing respect for human rights - in a small - but very real - way.
-
Too late to read all this thread, just wanted to say I hated compulsory unionism. It wasn't technically compulsory at Auckland Uni when I was there, but if you opted out then you couldn't borrow books from the library, which was pretty much required in most courses. Not that the Union owned the library - it was just a deal they'd struck with the Uni to make unionism pretty much compulsory. Admittedly all those fees they took were eventually saved up to make a much better amenities complex, which was enjoyed by students well after I'd left. But I did object deeply to very large donations being given to the Labour party, and I never did find out what happened to that speedboat which was supposedly purchased for the waterskiing club that had no members.
-
I'm pretty sure I'm not arguing against the existence of universities.
Er, actually, I am pretty sure that what you have said is an argument against universities: you must associate to get the degree; you have very little choice about who to associate with if you want a given degree; and they are public* organisations. The justification for universities is the advancement of knowledge and the dissemination and maintenance thereof by teaching and research; that is also the justification for students' associations.
What you have to now show is either that there is some difference between students' associations and universities that allows one to distinguish them, and I think this will be very hard, because it is my belief that the difference between a body composed of the members of a university and a body composed of the members of a university currently studying at that university is pretty slim; or that students' associations do not advance knowledge etc., which technically speaking is a matter of practical utility I believe you are not interested in.
* Again, a dodgy term, but.
-
Hmm, Baby, Bathtub Water?
I do see your point Graeme and I have a feeling that you are playing "Devils Advocate" (bloody lawyers).
I don't see a breach of human rights here, I can see a legal argument for a breach of human rights but that is not proven by your argument, certainly not beyond reasonable doubt.
As with your Liberal use of the term "Freedom of Association" your view of human rights veers away from intended consequence and traps the argument into a self defeating conundrum. -
I'm still trying to locate the point of contention here. So, is your beef not with the tyranny of the majority within the student body, or the fact that an institution makes membership of an organisation a prerequisite, but that the institution has a state mandate to do so?
CSM doesn't have its origins in the state, it has its origins in the universities, dating back many decades. The VSM law made that optional upon the vote of students (over the opposition of the universities, who want students associations to be compulsory) but they were all compulsory well before that.
Newer universities (ie, Waikato, in the 1963 Act had the power to take money for students associations put into their Act), and everyone university was empowered to do it in the 1990 Education Amendment Act (Section 215), but older universities (Auckland, Otago) begun it off their own bat, not due to the state.
It hasn't really got too much to do with the institution. VUW hasn't made membership of VUWSA a prerequisite to study.
It has. I'm not sure when it happened at Victoria, but it would have been enforced by the university council some time last century (VUW is about 110 years old, I'm not sure how long it took them to move from the students association being created to it being compulsory).
-
It wasn't technically compulsory at Auckland Uni when I was there, but if you opted out then you couldn't borrow books from the library, which was pretty much required in most courses. Not that the Union owned the library - it was just a deal they'd struck with the Uni to make unionism pretty much compulsory.
I'm not sure when you went to university, but I think someone misled you there.
But I did object deeply to very large donations being given to the Labour party, and I never did find out what happened to that speedboat which was supposedly purchased for the waterskiing club that had no members.
I should point out that the legendary speedboat money was spent by an Auckland President operating illegally under the AUSA constitution. He's also a passionate right-wing VSMer.
Post your response…
This topic is closed.