Posts by Steve Parks
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
Hard News: Rape and unreason, in reply to Megan Wegan,
... we are told to not walk alone at night.
That message has been put out plenty before too, after some attacks. I note that the incident that started this discussion involved women walking together, through an apparently well lit park. But hey, let's just shift the goal posts so women shouldn't do that either.
-
Hard News: Rape and unreason, in reply to Dean Papa,
Oh for crying out loud Craig! That is a very silly argument. There is no logic to it.
To be fair, the silliness in that exchange started with Bob's analogy with the DMC.
-
Hard News: Rape and unreason, in reply to Bob Dobelina,
So while that is extremely difficult to regulate, what is known is that you can be safe by taking precautions like not wandering around drunk in the dark.
Ah I see. It’s “extremely difficult to regulate” the stuff that actually accounts for most sexual assault, but you can be safe anyway, just by avoiding a few drinks on a cloudy night.
An indecent assault is not an indecent assault if a jury acquits the accused of indecent assault.
Incorrect. Even with your myopically legalistic take, the jury’s view is only that that person didn’t commit the act of indecent assault, not that there was necessarily no assault. Besides, the point here seems to be that some disagree with the jury’s view – it just begs the question to say the jury must be right.
-
Hard News: Moving on, in reply to Robyn Gallagher,
I never usually watched Media 3 (or 7), but it was just nice knowing that it was there. I guess that’s the problem – TV shows need viewers, not supporters.
Our of curiosity, why were you a supporter more than a viewer?
-
Hard News: Friday Music: History, motherfuckers, in reply to BlairMacca,
I actually agree with what Sweetman is trying to say, but again he lets himself down with cheap shots.
Seems to me that sans cheap shots, he's not saying much.
-
Hard News: Game Lorde, in reply to Russell Brown,
While I agree with all you’ve said, the man in question just seems to lap up criticism as if it was praise. There is no difference, when all you want is to put yourself in the frame.
Yes, you’re probably right. But it actually made me angry.
Oh well, this might help: Dog on the Tracks.
[Sorry of it’s been linked already, I’ve just zipped through these comments. Got it from Gio Tiso’s Facebook feed.]
-
Hard News: Jonesing, in reply to Keir Leslie,
Trotter brings the disgusting. Wanker.
I pretty much agree with the Rebecca Matthews FB comment Trotter quoted so disapprovingly. I note she added in the comments of the Trotter article: "I am not against discussing homophobia, that’s just silly – I am saying that people who say its a reason why Grant shouldn’t be leader aren’t progressives."
Fair enough, too.
However, I read for the first time in Trotter's article the actual comment in full from Michie, and the question it was in response to. It was a poor response, for sure, but I think a reasonable person could conclude that she didn't intend it to be a dog whistle. Curran portraying the comment as saying NZ wasn't ready for a gay Prime Minister and it was probably the biggest dog whistle ever was pretty silly.
Yet, I expect a 'lefty/liberal' asked the equivalent question but involving race, or gender, would answer quite differently. Technically, the answer should be the same; it would still be "naïve to imagine" there'd be no resistance to a Maori PM. But I just don't think the answer would have been so acquiescent.
-
The Young Labour Twitter account has been publishing the candidates’ answers to questions on universal student allowances, female representation, and decriminalising abortion. Note Robertson’s “conservative” answer there…
And note Shane Jones' complete bullshit answer. He should be the joke candidate that Keir described him as, but somehow he's been taken seriously.
Sophie,
The enablers Keir was referring to are the Rail & Maritime Transport Union and the Dairy Workers Union. Not sure if they can be said to have personalities, but if so they seem to be ones that exhibit poor judgment. -
OnPoint: What Andrew Geddis Said, But…, in reply to Ana Simkiss,
You are right that the constitution is unwritten, but to overturn the principle of parliamentary sovereignty would violate the most fundamental principle of that constitution.
Hmm, it’s a tricky one. I feel I can’t quite get my expression of my point on this right, possibly because I have no technical legal expertise at all, but I do think there’s something fundamentally wrong (in a legal theory/constitutional sense) with the Government’s actions here.
As I understand it, under our (albeit unwritten) constitution, parliament has a fairly clearly defined role, and the courts/judiciary have a fairly clearly defined and quite separate role, and both are fundamental.
Put crudely: parliament makes the laws, and the courts interpret it from there, especially in terms of whether those laws are applied correctly in an individual instance. They’re two sides of the same coin and it doesn’t make sense to talk of “parliamentary sovereignty” as the most fundamental principle of that constitution. If parliament itself undermines the very constitutional conventions that give the parliament its validity (and therefore its sovereignty) then it can hardly cry foul if another player in the constitutional arrangement stands its ground, so to speak.
Put another way, a court overturning Parliament-made law for violating the constitution would itself be violating the contstitution.
Well, yes, but then aren’t you acknowledging that by definition the constitution is already broken, thanks to parliament?
(prepares for Edgeler schooling on constitutional law)
One must always be prepared for this.
-
OnPoint: What Andrew Geddis Said, But…, in reply to Idiot Savant,
Does anyone know why the redacted parts couldn’t be got by an OIA request?
You can try, but they will likely withhold it as legal advice. That withholding ground is one of the stronger ones, and it would take an exceptionally strong public interest, ...
And isn't that exactly what we have? I mean, you have a constitutional law expert saying: "While the stakes may be small in the immediate case, this is about as big a deal as it gets in terms of our constitution."