Posts by Steve Barnes
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
There's this thing called principle. It means that you don't change your general position on something just because its inconvenient at the time. If freedom of association is good for members or religious groups, protest groups, unions, etc, its also good for annoying pubescent right wingers who don't want to be part of students associations.
True, when did I say otherwise. Those pubescent right wingers have every right to protest as much as they like, they can campaign for Voluntary membership the same as I stick to my principles when I don't want to see further eroding of the institutions that covet those freedoms. You can argue till you're blue in the face that there is a legal precedent to claim that those that wish to destroy what little defence we have against oppression but don't try and claim the high ground of principle, it goes far deeper than that.
The European Court of Human Rights is probably the most respected human rights body in the world. It doesn't help your credibility to just dismiss it out of hand.
It neither helps your credibility to claim I dismissed it, I did not. I just pointed out the tortured equivalence of the argument. How can you claim otherwise is beyond comprehension.
The point at which coherent debate can happen is whether or not CSM is a justified limitation on the right to freedom of association. It is legally untenable to argue that it doesn't involve a breach of the right at all.
I would agree that it seems there could be a technical breach of some interpretation of the Bill of Rights. However. The Law, surely, is there to uphold principal not be the principal itself, would you not agree with that?.
Because of a case arising in Iceland, the argument that freedom of association does not include freedom from association is bunk.
That is the sole reliance I place on case.I would say that in the particular case you refer to and under the curcumstances with which the case was brought then an anomaly was illustrated. I cannot see how this precedent could override the basic tenet of Human Rights legislation which is to protect against oppression, not to protect perceived rights of the individual over rights and general good of the majority.
I came to this discussion in good faith and hold no animosity. I just cannot see how you can defend the actions of Douglas and his ilk when you know what the agenda is. -
At the time when the applicant was granted a taxicab licence, such licences were governed by the 1970 Law on Motor Vehicles for Public Hire and the 1983 Regulation. The latter was subsequently amended by Regulation no. 293/1985 ("the 1985 Regulation"): the body previously called the "licence issuers" was thereafter to be known as the Committee for Taxicab Supervision (see paragraph 20 below).
In 1989 the 1970 Law and the 1985 Regulation were replaced by the 1989 Law on Motor Vehicles for Public Hire and Regulation no. 308/1989 ("the 1989 Regulation"). The applicant’s original complaint to the Commission was concerned only with the situation after the entry into force of the 1989 legislation on 1 July 1989 .
So. Because of a technicality arising from an amendment in the law in Iceland pertaining to taxi drivers appeared to breach regulations under the European Court of Human Rights we have to let Rodger 1% Douglas dictate the right of students to vote on the status of membership of their Association?.
Feeble excuse for chucking the baby out with the bathwater. -
Cite? Otherwise I call BS :).
Grrrrr, pedant.
;-) -
How does the wearing of a uniform infringe on fundamental rights and freedoms protected by the Bill of Rights Act 1990 in the same way that forcing someone to join an association they do not wish to join infringes on the right to freedom of association?
If it were not for an exemption for the armed forces the forced wearing of a uniform would be against the Bill of Rights Act 1990. The other point has been covered over and over again, it is "Freedom of Association" not "Freedom FROM Association"
-
I am surprised that Women are allowed to dress up like bordello cushions in Parliament whilst the blokes have to wear a collar and lead.
-
I think a hell of a lot of people want to attend university. It's easier to see in somewhere like the US, where people might aspire to "just" attend a Harvard or a Yale. But I very much think that attending a university is a massive draw for a lot on students in New Zealand too.
And being part of that is belonging to the Student Association. Your argument is like "I want to join the Army but I will not wear that uniform"
-
They say that if you repeat a lie long enough it becomes the accepted truth.
Hide knew that Key would back him, why else would he offer to resign? If Key had wanted to destroy Hide he could have called him on it. Why would he? after all didn't National give Hide Worths seat?
I wonder whether that was just a numbers game, if Worth won you get one seat, if Hide wins you get five. Or is there something deeper and nastier? is there money involved? is there a connection to America's far right?Key's insistence on no Maori seats because it doesn't happen anywhere else is disingenuous, it's back to front. What he means is "If we allow Maori seats in Auckland we will have to allow them when we fuck over all the other councils".
-
Still ignoring you, Steve.
Obviously.
-
Geez, Godwind by Craig on page one, no surprise there I suppose.
-
Hmm, Baby, Bathtub Water?
I do see your point Graeme and I have a feeling that you are playing "Devils Advocate" (bloody lawyers).
I don't see a breach of human rights here, I can see a legal argument for a breach of human rights but that is not proven by your argument, certainly not beyond reasonable doubt.
As with your Liberal use of the term "Freedom of Association" your view of human rights veers away from intended consequence and traps the argument into a self defeating conundrum.