Up Front by Emma Hart

but the conversation will continue and grow much bigger, I am sure.

Be that so-

Thank you Sofie and Islander for so expertly getting back on track. I was getting very bad tempered and wishing there was legislation I could use. Haha just kidding. Lovely women those two, and youse too of course

Good news: this story in the Herald.

Bad news: sacked Herald sub-editors read the headline, the story, and weep.

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/politics/news/article.cfm?c_id=280&objectid=10829817

http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/7563277/Bill-forces-same-sex-marriages-on-church-lawyer

"Lawyer paid to say whatever Family First wants"?

"Lawyer paid to say whatever Family First wants"?

And whatever Right to Life wants.

That article is awful. One lawyer says x. Other lawyers say not-x. Ok, fine, I don't know which lawyer is right*. But I do know that there's a controversy that should be reported, not some simple `a lawyer has pronounced'.

* although I do reckon that opinion's pretty shoddy, the whole argument turns on a bare assertion at C 1 (f) that s 29 doesn't allow for discrimination. Which, yeah, sure, possible, but there's arguments the other way that Just Aren't Dealt With, which is quite amateur. Hilarious handling of Quilter. (Mind you Quilter is super awkward all round anyone 'cause it's so obviously bad.) And no discussion of the Canadian experience, which is again pretty weak. And he fails to give Lousia Wall the proper post-nominals.