Posts by WH
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
1. We are dooooooooooomed.
Yeah, probably.
The UK Labour Party has a lead on the Conservatives at the moment despite the gradual improvement in the economy here. One of Ed Miliband's more effective lines of attack has been the UK's "cost of living crisis", particularly the steadily increasing cost of energy.
I would have thought this would resonate in New Zealand, where everything from housing to electricity seems to have become more expensive - in part because of reforms introduced by successive National governments. The idea would be to increase the disposable income of the average worker by lowering the costs they face (rather than by increasing wages or changing the tax system) whilst lowering the costs of production for firms.
I suppose I just miss Helen and Michael.
Lastly, given that it's the only thing I'm likely to be able to influence this election, I'd like to throw my support behing a green fern on a white flag, rather than the silver fern on a black flag.
-
Certainly one problem is the tendency for online debate to be reduced to a kind of moral policing, in which what's said isn't challenged but merely condemned along with whoever has said it.
Once someone has threatened rape or violence, or repeatedly made comments that are defamatory or in the nature of harassment, interventions that go beyond mere moderation will sometimes will be required.
There are lots of ways in which people degrade public debate without committing actual crimes (the Daily Mail's attack on Ralph Miliband and climate change astroturfing by fossil fuel companies come to mind as examples) and in my view people are right to criticise this sort of conduct in purely moral terms.
You could say that using social superiority to opportunistically humiliate someone is a dickish thing to do, or you could say that the comments made on The Great Debate were unethical. If that's moral policing then I suppose I'm mostly comfortable with it.
-
I did not know Charlotte, but remember that many of the remarks made about her were simply feral.
The silences that we use to show respect for the dead are often used to conceal the supreme indifference shown to vulnerable people while they are alive. The calculated cruelty of the comments made on The Great Debate are a better measure of our society than we would probably care to admit.
-
I trust that this addresses your concerns, Graeme.
I'm not sure you can describe a campaign that is supported by the Herald, the NBR and Kiwiblog as "very marginal".
At the risk of sounding naive, public debate shouldn't generally be led by character assassination. Noone looks back at Tony Blair's government telling the press that David Kelly was a Walter Mitty-type fantasist - or Helen Clark describing the leaders of the Hikoi of Hope as "wreckers and haters" - with a lasting sense of satisfaction.
(FWIW I don't think the mayor should resign.)
-
There was a vote in parliament, the eyes had it and that is how our design of democratic system works.
The fact that laws are enacted by parliamentary majorities is very important, but I don’t think it completely determines whether a law has been passed in a democratic way.
We don’t say that governments that break their election promises have acted democratically simply because they pass laws with parliamentary majorities. You wouldn’t call legislative support obtained by the selective use of evidence (e.g., the Bush Administration’s case for the Iraq war) democratic simply because a valid statute was passed. You often hear it said that urgency and bogus consultation periods undermine the integrity of the democratic process.
In the same way, a parliament that passes overwhelmingly unpopular legislation can and will be said to have acted undemocratically.
Anyway, I think I’ve said everything I wanted to say. See ya next time people.
-
And what exactly did Sue Bradford do to piss you off?
I think Bradford's campaign was dishonest, that her tactics set the stage for one of the most unpleasant public debates of the last decade, and that the overall result was undemocratic. I think that's enough reasons to disapprove of what she did. I know there are those who consider that the ends justified the means.
We’re going to start driving on the other side of the road, but the change will be introduced gradually.
I'm having a flashback of the Sandringham Rd / New North Road intersection. I hope you guys are doing something about this while I'm away.
Floating the idea that legislative phase-ins are "confusing and unclear" because you don't approve of a particular policy is pretty disingenuous. An immediate ban was not the only way we could have gone on this.
As with any assault, it’s unlikely to be prosecuted at the low end of the spectrum.
This is where a lot of people - maybe 85% of people - did not want us to be.
-
Instead we were treated to the spactacle of pro-beaters saying “we support this parent who’s been unjustly charged” … “with punching a five year old in the face”, which didn’t help anyone.
I think you're right, that would be a really unfortunate position to take.
Those were the kinds of real-life acquittals that persuaded most reasonable people that the old law needed to be changed.
-
-
I hear what you're saying, but don't agree that smacking children can be compared to spousal rape or criminalised homosexuality.
There were a range of ways in which New Zealand could have responded to concerns about the use of physical discipline. Funding for at-risk families could have been increased, education and support could have provided to new parents, or a total ban could have been phased in over time.
Instead of trying to persuade a sceptical electorate, Sue Bradford's supporters conflated parenting methods still in widespread use with the most severe kinds of child abuse. The discussion of whether it was acceptable to smack your child's hand in a supermarket devolved into the discussion of whether it is good parenting to beat a child around the head with a piece of bamboo. Supporters' inability to maintain the distinction at the heart of the conversation created a deeply unpleasant and fractious atmosphere.
I don't think Bradford's proposal was a sensible way to start a law reform effort and I don't think she was the right person to lead such a sensitive debate. The problems with her approach were compounded by the fact that she couldn't admit that a middle ground existed without undermining the case for her own amendment.
In short, I don't think that our Parliament should have overrode public opinion in the way that it did in this case. IMO we were forced into a fool's choice by Bradford and the rhetoric of her supporters.
-
Putting the merits of the smacking law to one side, the episode stands as an example of how not to bring about social and legislative change.
We can all reflect on what a win this was for democracy the next time Parliament passes fiercely contested social legislation in the face of overwhelming public opposition.