Posts by WH
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
I unfriended someone recently after years of anti-Israeli FB posts culminated in a wave of nonsense during the height of the fighting in Gaza. The pattern of selective emphasis ultimately implied something really unpleasant.
I remember when a university acquaintance started trying out anti-Jewish references ('don't be such a Jew', etc). I don't know what to say when he now holds forth on Middle Eastern politics in broadly orthodox (but strongly pro-Palestinian) terms.
I can understand why the Jewish people are suspicious of ostensibly principled criticism.
-
Whyte acknowledges that:
[I]n our ordinary use of the word, it is absurd to say that Maori are privileged. The average life expectancy of Maori is significantly lower than Pakeha and Asian. Average incomes are lower. Average educational achievement is lower.
Why then compare the legal status of Maori to that of the French aristocracy, or indirectly compare New Zealand to apartheid South Africa?
But the principle of legal equality is far more important than any redistributive or compensatory impulses that people may have. It is not some philosophical nicety to be discarded because you feel guilty about what people with the same skin pigment as you did 150 or 200 years ago. (Emphasis added.)
Whatever its imperfections, article three of the Treaty gives Maori the rights and privileges of British subjects. After 175 years, you might have expected this legal equality to have translated into a broad equality of life outcomes as measured by life expectancy, average income and educational achievement. That hasn't happened, and ACT doesn't seem to mind ("redistributive impulses", etc).
If we were going to have a discussion about how formal legal equality should fit into New Zealand's constitutional structure, would we have asked ACT to lead it with an election stunt?
-
Someone once said that:
The law, in its majestic equality, forbids the rich as well as the poor to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal bread.
It's pretty brazen of ACT to argue that the statistically unambiguous disparities in New Zealand's society are caused by pro-Maori legal bias. This feels like a rehash of the Orewa speech.
There's little point in discussing the finer points of constitutional law with people who deny the need to use policy to help the disadvantaged.
-
Hello Ian and Lucy,
I would say that a publisher is a "news medium" to the extent that he, she or it engages in "news activities". The definitions used suggest that an organization can be part "news medium" and part ordinary entity, and thereby have only some of its operations subject to the Act.
While I think we have to be a little bit careful about eliding unhelpful statutory language, I'm not sure that the term "article or programme" was intended to create a distinction between long and short form journalism. I don't see why a book on a matter of current concern should be treated as something other than a long news article for Privacy Act purposes.
As Lucy points out, the Act's recognition of "the gathering of news" may imply a broader approach.
-
I've seen Justice Winkelmann do some good work and would not want to criticise her unfairly. That said, I think there's an error at paragraph 69 of the judgment:
First, Mr Fisher's authorship of the book was not undertaken by a "news medium". [...] There can be no suggestion that Mr Fisher is himself a news medium as that [phrase] is defined in the [Privacy Act 1993].
This is not quite right:
- Section 2 of the Act states that a "news medium" is "an agency" whose business, or part of whose business, consists of a news activity;
- Section 2 defines "news activity" as the act of preparing, gathering or disseminating news or current affairs; and
- Justice Winkelmann has acknowledged (at paragraph 66) that an individual can be "an agency" for the purposes of the Act.When you put these things together you should reach the conclusion that a freelance journalist or author can be a "news medium" for the purposes of the Privacy Act 1993. It would be interesting to see the point argued on appeal.
Lastly, I think it's important to note the media's supremely difficult relationship with the concept of personal privacy.
-
(Tony Blair's one-way use of the internet to post his preposterous instructions for victory must surely convince even fewer. You're better off reading Giovanni's excellent Blair satire.),
I cast my mind back to Sectarian Bloodlust 1.0, during which a number of regressively minded individuals turned Afghanistan into a terrorist training camp and flew aeroplanes into the World Trade Centre. As I understand it, the goal was to kindle the kind of conflict that groups such as "Al Qaeda in Iraq" and Boko Haram are now progressing.
Who knows, maybe you'll actually get to do something about it all at some stage.
-
Whilst pretending to be fouled by diving is cheating, diving when actually fouled is perfectly legitimate. If you are in the box and a defender makes illegal contact, you are within your rights to hit the turf.
I agree. I remember deciding that football players hit the turf too easily as kid watching the 1986 tournament. I haven't entirely changed my mind but my more recent memories are of defenders' professional fouls on attackers. It gets harder to assess the merits of a claim for a foul as players get closer to goal.
I bought a 42-inch smart TV to watch the tournament today and have just finished setting it up. It's doing a great job of looking good in my living room and is actually quite impressive. The only minor drawback is that LG doesn't currently seem to have rights to all of the UK's on-demand services. Be that as it may, I feel that I've attained some sort of optimally kitted out state, however temporarily.
And the Black Caps look as though they are closing in on a win in Kingston.
-
One of the challenges in officiating football is contact interfering with possession that is not obviously enough to knock a player over. A lot of 'soft' falls outside of the penalty areas arise simply because players would not otherwise be awarded a foul.
The English traditionally solved the problem by taking a robust approach that prized a certain toughness, but in conjunction with water logged pitches it tended to hinder the development of passing and dribbling based play. I actually just made that up, but it kinda sounds like it could be true. I couldn't watch the 'long ball' based games the Premier League threw up in the early 1990s.
Anyway. England's first game against Italy (being a re-match of the Euro 2012 quarter final) could decide which of the two teams progresses from group D and so will be completely fascinating. So much hinges on how England's new look midfield fits together: Sterling and Lallana were hugely impressive in the domestic season and Oxlade-Chamberlain and Barkley looked good in the recent warm up matches.
Spain v the Netherlands on Friday night should also be great to watch - the loser will almost certainly meet Brazil in the round of sixteen (assuming they go on to qualify). Brazil will have to be careful - it faces another Maracanazo and the locals already seem pretty restive.
-
I've got a track for you, Brown, if you can handle my cool, cool freshness.
-
John Banks was once New Zealand's Minister of Police. I'm a long way from being a perfect man myself, but I remember Banks being pretty tough on the criminal element when he was on talkback.
The ACT Party's current law and order policy is here and features the following:
ACT generally favours tough and principled sentencing that is a proportionate deterrent to the crimes it focuses on.
While I disagree with John Banks about most things, the Court's finding of guilt has made me realise I don't bear him any personal animosity. On the other hand, I don't think a discharge without conviction can be part of the discussion in all the circumstances.
We're a long way from the conversation about the presumption of innocence we had on this blog a few years back - this is actually quite an historic turn of events.