Speaker by Various Artists

Read Post

Speaker: Sex, monsters and outrage

31 Responses

First ←Older Page 1 2 Newer→ Last

  • Cecelia,

    Yes, I think that's a good argument in theory but it backfired here for at least one student. There's also the relieving teacher being asked to teach this vileness without the necessary skills or context. I've been a relieving teacher and it's often baby-sitting if you're taking something out of your field. Then there's the quality of the teaching and the vulnerability of the kids. I remember a science teacher showing one of those " the moon landing was a fake" videos in order to provide food for thought. A lot of the Year 10 kids believed it. Moreover, for me as an older adult and a firm atheist the material on the website was absolutely disgusting. I'd be shocked if one of my kids had been exposed to it even if it was to foster debate. I think it would take humongous teaching skills to put that in context. I suppose the pamphlet was a bit milder but not much. Then again I don't know the whole context. I just feel there might be one of John Key's beloved counter views here.

    Hibiscus Coast • Since Apr 2008 • 559 posts Report Reply

  • Lilith __, in reply to Steve Curtis,

    There is no discrimination period. Some people have no idea of the meaning of words.

    Spreading wacko views about unmarried woman isnt hate speech , it isnt discrimination either.

    Since we must go down this route, Hate Speech:

    Hate speech is, outside the law, speech that attacks a person or group on the basis of attributes such as gender, ethnic origin, religion, race, disability, or sexual orientation.[1][2]

    In law, hate speech is any speech, gesture or conduct, writing, or display which is forbidden because it may incite violence or prejudicial action against or by a protected individual or group, or because it disparages or intimidates a protected individual or group

    [Wikipedia]

    and Discrimination:

    Discrimination is treatment or consideration of, or making a distinction in favor of or against, a person or thing based on the group, class, or category to which that person or thing belongs rather than on individual merit.[1] This includes treatment of an individual or group based on their actual or perceived membership in a certain group or social category, “in a way that is worse than the way people are usually treated”.[2]

    [also Wikipedia]

    Welcome to the these words.

    Dunedin • Since Jul 2010 • 3891 posts Report Reply

  • Kumara Republic, in reply to Cecelia,

    Yes, I think that's a good argument in theory but it backfired here for at least one student. There's also the relieving teacher being asked to teach this vileness without the necessary skills or context. I've been a relieving teacher and it's often baby-sitting if you're taking something out of your field. Then there's the quality of the teaching and the vulnerability of the kids. I remember a science teacher showing one of those " the moon landing was a fake" videos in order to provide food for thought. A lot of the Year 10 kids believed it. Moreover, for me as an older adult and a firm atheist the material on the website was absolutely disgusting. I'd be shocked if one of my kids had been exposed to it even if it was to foster debate. I think it would take humongous teaching skills to put that in context. I suppose the pamphlet was a bit milder but not much. Then again I don't know the whole context. I just feel there might be one of John Key's beloved counter views here.

    Sadly I suspect there's bad old-fashioned functional illiteracy at play. It's the same with any book of a clear extremist intent - any of us here would look them up for context and how to prevent extremism happening in the future, but certain people of narrower minds and attention spans tend to take it at face value.

    The southernmost capital … • Since Nov 2006 • 5439 posts Report Reply

  • Lucy Telfar Barnard,

    Steve and Lilith, I think your discussion of the meaning of the words “discrimination” and “hate speech” is a case of two rights making a wrong.

    Lilith’s definitions of the two words are correct. Steve is also correct that New Zealand laws on hate speech (inciting “Racial Disharmony” in the Human Rights Act 1993) only cover race, ethnic or national origin. It doesn’t mean that the pamphlets aren’t hate speech, it just means they’re not illegal hate speech.

    Also, in order for the distribution of the pamphlet to constitute discrimination under New Zealand law, there would have to be a detriment – otherwise it’s “just” hate speech. So if one of the students suffered any sort of detriment – whether it was feeling offended, or bad about themselves, or teasing, or anything else, because of the distribution of the pamphlet, then they would have experienced discrimination in access to education, on grounds of family status (assuming none of the students were themselves single parents). But without any detriment, there is no discrimination. If there was anything in any of the media reports about any of the students having a detrimental outcome or any sort of adverse consequence of the pamphlet distribution, I missed it. Therefore, under New Zealand law, no discrimination occurred.

    Again, that doesn’t mean that the pamphlet wasn’t bigoted and discriminatory and hate speech. It just means that (so far) neither it, nor its distribution, were illegal.

    Wellington • Since Nov 2006 • 585 posts Report Reply

  • Joe Boden, in reply to Dylan Reeve,

    And according to another SEN post the same school, just in the last week, put on some sort of whole-school show run by Equippers church.

    My kids go to this school so I know a bit about what's been happening.

    The session run during the school day had no actual Christian content and was focussed on bullying. However, the evening session run in the school hall did have Christian content, but attendance at that session was completely voluntary (not unlike many schools allowing churches to use their halls for services at the weekend). Having said that, I can see where a secular presentation can easily contain some disguised Christian content.

    There was a great rebuttal of the post on the SEN by a Papanui Year 12 student.

    Christchurch • Since Nov 2006 • 97 posts Report Reply

  • tony j ricketts,

    It's just happening again - I was searching for something a minute ago, and the Google item down below referred to Stuff, with a picture of Andrew Little and a headline about sex-change surgery funding being 'Nutty'. Except that it was the Minister of Health who said 'nutty'. People scanning past such headlines will always have the wrong end of the stick.

    wellington • Since Aug 2012 • 41 posts Report Reply

First ←Older Page 1 2 Newer→ Last

Post your response…

Please sign in using your Public Address credentials…

Login

You may also create an account or retrieve your password.