Posts by George Darroch
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
That sounds suspiciously like George Bush. Do you want to rephrase that Kyle?.
No, he's not justifying torture, quite the opposite.
Even among those such as myself who view rights as a 'convenient fiction', there are times when we do in fact treat them as absolute, or at least as trumps.
Again, I don't want to deny that freedom of association is an important right, and I thank Graeme for raising the issue here.
-
How, George? As Graeme said, the rights guaranteed under the NZBORA are individual rights. Putting those rights to a vote in the case of freedom of association is just as inappropriate as putting the right, say, to freedom from discrimination on the basis of sex, disability, sexual orientation, race etc, to a vote. The point of guaranteed rights is to protect the (often unpopular) minority against the majority who finds it convenient to trample on their rights.
And here, once again, we come to the falacy of pretending there is no conflict of rights. Freedom of association is an important right*, but it is not the only
As I have said upthread, and I did not wish to bore others by repeating myself, students organisations exist to protect the rights of students, to representation, the provision of services, and protection from a more powerful university.These are rights that cannot usually be effectively mandated individually. It is by virtue of encompassing all or the large majority of the student body that these things are possible.
As I said, I think there is a good case to make that CSM is a justified limitation on the right to freedom of association, but that calculation is completely independent of the fact that students voted on it.
At least we're starting to get away from the fallacious free/not-free dichotomy. Students are partly free to non-associate, and a lot of comment seems to ignore this, whether deliberately or not. Again, their are no absolute freedoms or rights. More of one necessarily limits others.
Making rights dependant upon the will of the majority is completely repugnant.
I guess you also find Parliament repugnant? The great majority of laws have rights implications - don't pretend otherwise - and these are determined by the majority.
*Terming something a "right" is simply to say that it is something we think should strongly be protected. Rights are not trumps.
-
As I've said at least three or four times in this thread, students already have the option of VSM.
In every university except for Auckland and Otago, they chose to go compulsory. If they want VSM they can vote for it. It's in their hands. This is about taking that choice out of the hands of students.
-
But as Graham would (rightly) respond, freedom is freedom and we should not quibble with something that advances it.
In a perfect world, we would not have conflicts of rights*, or conflicts of freedom. But as is quickly evident, we do. And in this case, the right to freedom of association currently exists in a limited form (the student body currently deciding whether to exist as a voluntary organisation). The new law would increase that freedom, and protect that right. But it would lessen the ability to access effective representation and funding, representation and funding which is used to access and protect other rights.
Experience overseas shows that in many cases these rights are weakened by forced voluntarisation. There may be a way of protecting them, but you'd have to demonstrate how that would be done.
Graeme should by all means argue a case from rights. But to claim that freedom of association is the only right at play here is simplistic at best.
*Bentham called rights "nonsense on stilts", with good reason. Calling something a right is simply our way of saying we think it is important.
-
Sometimes those historically of the left have advanced the cause of human freedom, sometimes those of the right. I don't care that Lincoln was a Republican - that he fought against slavery is good enough for me. Much smaller potatoes this time around, but I'm arguing for an idea, not a side.
If you want that freedom, fight for it. Campaign for students to choose voluntary at VUW (or wherever else takes your fancy).
But don't campaign for a bill which will force students who have chosen compulsory association membership* to go voluntary against their wishes.
*Yeah, there will be a minority on the losing side. But that's democracy. If they lose, they can always try again.
-
I just don't want them to be able to force others along for the ride.
And that is the point. It isn't a small group - a majority of students have decided that membership should stay compulsory.
-
I asked whether there was a compelling state interest in making student membership compulsory.
But here's the thing. They're only compulsory where students have decided they want them to be - and they have the option of becoming non-compulsory should at any time they decide otherwise. If students want voluntary organisations, they get them. The 1999 National Government legislation had exactly that purpose.
What we're talking about here is compulsory non-compulsion.
A cynic would say this is because students haven't made the right decisions about their organisations.
-
But I don't oppose compulsory membership of students' associations from a free-market perspective. I oppose it from a human rights-based perspective.
But, as I've noted upthread, there are compulsory non-Government organisations, with the statutory ability to regulate and levy. You can't vote in voluntary membership of Fish and Game regions.
All kinds of activities are controlled by bodies that are at least partly compulsory, most of them Government, a few non-Government, and most don't have opt-out referendum clauses. What's special about this one?
-
I fear this one hurts your case, rather than helps it. As Matthew notes above, AUSA is voluntary.
And the dues that fund those telephones are still compulsory, only now they're taken directly by the university, and then given to the students association. AUSA is effectively a contracted service provider.
Same fees, less control over them.
-
Whoops, pressed reply
...by private associations, and their service delivery should match only that which the private association is able to acquire and levy by themselves.