Posts by Sacha
-
Legal Beagle: Infrequently asked questions, in reply to Paul Campbell,
student association elections included a "No confidence" option
I believe Auckland did sometime in the 80s or 90s too. Very popular candidate.
-
Legal Beagle: Referendum Fact Check #6:…, in reply to Steve Withers,
greater numbers were also meant to better power Select Committee work, I recall
-
OnPoint: 3 News Exclusive Investigation…, in reply to Lucy Stewart,
how much John Key plays up his poverty-stricken childhood
that he gets away with it speaks volumes about the quality of alternative discourses on offer
-
OnPoint: 3 News Exclusive Investigation…, in reply to Lucy Stewart,
there are rituals and expectations they're just not aware of
I've been fascinated watching people use particular architects and furniture designers as social signifiers, for example.
-
Legal Beagle: Infrequently asked questions, in reply to Graeme Edgeler,
a no confidence party with an empty list that reduced the size of Parliament by one for every MP they earned.
A curiously attractive suggestion as a regular part of the system, though it might ultimately bring selfish California/Colorado-style consequences.
-
Cracker: Spotted, in reply to DCBCauchi,
paste the full link including the http, but without any square brackets. site does the rest:
-
OnPoint: 3 News Exclusive Investigation…, in reply to Lucy Stewart,
people who take it for granted
Social capital is tremendously important, particularly when it comes to education, work and success (however that's defined).
One example - John Key's mother came from a family of wealthy traders in Europe. So despite being on the bones of her arse for many years in Christchurch, expectations about enterprise are bound to have been part of his childhood compared with many of his peers.
-
Cracker: Spotted, in reply to JacksonP,
looking pants
-
Cracker: Spotted, in reply to JacksonP,
I resorted to glib humour earlier
same, possibly less successfully. Even "pass" was a play on "parse"..
-
Dunedin law lecturer Andrew Geddis expands on the legalities of any local bylaw's relationship with the nation's Bill of Rights.
The New Zealand Parliament has passed an enactment - a law of the land - that affirms all New Zealanders have a right to peacefully assemble and express themselves. That's what the occupiers are doing.
Those rights, as affirmed in law by New Zealand's Parliament, can only be limited in ways that are "demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society". This requires the person seeking to limit the rights - the DCC, in this case - to show both that there is a very good reason to limit the rights and that this reason, in the particular circumstances, supports the particular limit on the rights in question.
Therefore, it is not enough for the DCC simply to say "we have made a general bylaw that limits the rights in question" ... because the DCC (and all the bylaws it creates) must respect these rights that Parliament has affirmed in law. The DCC instead has to show that there is a good enough reason for applying the particular bylaw to this particular protest in a way that brings it to a halt. Which it has yet to do - apart from supply some very general complaints about "the wider public" being kept out of the upper Octagon.