Posts by Eddie Clark
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
Gah! Waving cat statues so terrifying! And yet, what an excellent award, and what an appropriate trophy.
-
DPF:
There is no necessary link between a NZ head of State and increased independence. There may be between an independently elected president and an appointed Governor-General, but republicanism by no means necessarily involves an elected head of state. It would be perfectly possible to hold an election for Governor-General - one simply needs to pass legislation tying the PM's advice to the sovereign to a popular vote. Equally, it would be perfectly possible to have an appointed republican head of state.
-
Look at your shiny new masthead, Graeme! And to think a few short years ago we were sitting in class together listening to Tony rant about rights. Ah, the nostalgia!
Anyway, interesting post.
To address Raymond's point first, we already have a relatively well-written Bill of Rights, but it isn't entrenched, nor is it supreme law - i.e. courts don't have the express power to strike down legislation that infringes rights. Regardless, I'd suggest that a Bill of Rights isn't the correct place to put a parliamentary term limit. A Bill of Rights deals with the rights of individuals vis a vis the state. Parliamentary term should be in the strutural part of a country's constitution, which in NZ's case consists of the Constitution Act and certain parts of the Electoral Act. Graeme, correct me if I'm wrong as I can't recall off the top of my head, but isn't the term limit one of the single or double entrenched parts of the Electoral Act?
Anyway, when would I rise up? Rather sadly, and selfishly, I think it'd only be if a) the government seriously violated my rights or the rights of people close to me; and b) they restricted freedom of movement. b) is important because my first instinct would just be to leave. If that was removed, the people being persecuted are effectively cornered, in which case an uprising is pretty much the only option left.
-
*grumble*
Why does the first BDO worth going to for ages have to be scheduled while I'm out of the country. Arcade Fire! LCD Soundsystem! Spoon! I'm living in Canada and its impossible to get tickets to an Arcade Fire gig. Gah. Ah well, I shall comfort myself with the ludicrous number of other gigs on in Toronto - great place for live music.
-
Having been gay for a bit longer that three hours, David, I'd be happy to give you gay-lessons (by correspondence, given that I'm currently in Toronto). You'll have to find someone else to school you on the uke, though.
-
Hey, you've got a small problem there, rodgerd. Both you and I are up ourselves, sneering, Wellingtonians.
-
A few points, ron.
1) Have you read David Copperfield? Just wondering. Cos you didn't really seem to get the point I was making.
2)
I note that the two children recently admitted to Starhip hospital, who were both allegedly abused, don't appear to have received their injuries from being smacked.
Not very good logic there. You seem to be implying that because two people were seriously abused but not smacked, smacking never leads to serious abuse. This is, of course, a completely incoherent position.
3) Regarldess, I don't care if smacking leads to serious abuse or not. Smacking kids is, in and of itself, wrong (note that I'm not saying parents that smack their kids lightly once in a blue moon should immediately be sent to jail, but its still wrong). Likewise, caning or strapping kids is wrong. Indeed, most people who argued against Sue Bradford's bill claimed to only want the option to give their kids a "loving corrective tap", and apparently agreed that hitting with objects was wrong. Have the goalposts now shifted to wanting teachers to be able to give kids a punitive bash with an object?
-
Graeme, fair enough re the Herald (and I agree!). And I doubt that Family First has many thoughts full stop.
-
Since when have "childrens' rights" been "nonsense" anyway?
Haven't you read David Copperfield? Children aren't humans, and therefore have no rights.
And Graeme, in this case Family First may be less strident than the Herald (and what does that say about the Herald!), but at this point I think its opportune to list a few of their core principles... I just dragged these off their website, and hadn't appreciated exactly how close to a US-style religious right organisation they are:
We affirm the natural family to be the union of a man and a woman through marriage for the purposes of sharing love and joy, raising children, providing their moral education, building a vital home economy, offering security in times of trouble, and binding the generations
Read: De facto and gay relationships don't cut it, at least when it comes to raising children
We affirm that the natural family is the foundational family system. While we acknowledge varied living situations caused by circumstance or dysfunction, all other “family forms” are incomplete or fabrications of the state.
Read: Actually, de facto and gay relationships in which children are raised are in fact figments of the anarcho-communist lesbian conspiracy.
We affirm that the world is abundant in resources. The breakdown of the natural family and the consequential moral and political failure, not human “overpopulation,” account for poverty, starvation, and environmental decay.
Read: Being permissive to de facto and gay relationships causes environmental decay?! As opposed to, you know, pollution.
I'd say, if anything, they're even closer to the american "Focus on Family" style lobby than Maxim.
-
The most terrifying thing about the story is actually the poll that accompanied it. 3140 votes, and 69% supported the reintroduction of caning. Excuse me? 69%?! Did every member of Family First vote in the poll, or does it say something rather nasty about the Herald's readership and/or editorial policies. Given the "your say" comments they choose to post (which are improbably even more wincingly reactionary than those posted on stuff), possibly the latter.