Posts by Keir Leslie
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
Invest Christchurch would seek private investment for those of the anchor projects announced yesterday that were civic assets, parks, a multi-purpose stadium, residential housing, commercial office space and an innovation hub.
Um, parks? Private sector investment in parks? What on earth.
-
Up Front: The Up-Front Guides: The…, in reply to Angus Robertson,
Churches don't give out marriage licenses, they act on them. The Registrar must give a license except in certain specified cases. Refusal of solemnisation by a church is allowed by s29. (But would, say, a refusal to marry an Japanese couple 'cause of racial prejudice be allowed? Haven't the foggiest, don't know enough.)
-
Hard News: Christchurch: Is "quite good"…, in reply to Sacha,
Yeah, I apologise for a possibly less than constructive tone on my part as well there.
-
Note s29 of the Act though.
A marriage licence shall authorise but not oblige any [marriage celebrant] to solemnise the marriage to which it relates.
Obviously intended to allow celebrants to refuse to solemnise marriages if they have an objection to them.
Is a discriminatory objection legal? Is it legally discriminatory to refuse to marry a same-sex couple? If it is legally discriminatory, does s29 the Marriage Act along with s4 BORA protect that discrimination?
I dunno. I mean, I'd imagine that a Anglican couple who complained a Catholic priest wouldn't marry them would have difficulty getting a sympathetic court, but on the other hand discrimination based on religion, right?
-
Hard News: Christchurch: Is "quite good"…, in reply to Stephen Judd,
Yes! I agree, we should be quite open to cheapness and (maybe) nastiness and maybe badness, things that aren't perfect and won't last for ever.
-
Hard News: Christchurch: Is "quite good"…, in reply to Lilith __,
Yeah I know it isn’t just my city, and I’d hate to give the impression it was.
But I really do think that Sacha’s comments were basically trolling. I think Tom was contributing in good faith, and that he didn’t deserve the snark coming from Sacha, and it really does make me angry to be used as fodder in someone else’s fight. Even if he wasn’t, Hebe and you were perfectly able to say what needed to be said.
I am also quite unhappy that Sacha’s reaction to someone bluntly saying: I live here, I don’t want to be used in your argument was to call Tom a twat, carrying on that argument.
This is perhaps tied to a bigger thing. Don’t get me wrong, I want Christchurch to have great public transport, to have great infrastructure, to keep our council owned assets, to have a properly democratic council. I’ve worked towards those goals in various ways.
But I don’t particularly enjoy listening to people who don’t live here riding hobby horses about Ecan or whatever. (I am thinking of some of No Right Turn’s recent posts here.) I get that people who don’t live here are indignant and all, but it is quite unpleasant to be a pawn in other people’s arguments.
[Edited to add: sometimes, perhaps, it would be nice to have more allies and fewer angrily opinionated political ranters.]
-
Hard News: Christchurch: Is "quite good"…, in reply to merc,
Hah neither am I, just some poor sod who gets to live here.
-
A de-centralised city is a 1962 city --- when do you think the decisions to put QEII out East, the University out West, etc, were made?
-
Also, and this will sound obviously, I think there's something quite weird and siloised about a plan drawn up within the Avenues. After all, Lancaster Park was never within that area. Why does the new stadium have to be? (Well, cynically, because that's where CERA's powers run strongest.)
-
I do have some actual remarks about the city plan now. I am really depressed at how much looks to be paid for by public-private partnerships. Hospital, the courts precinct, convention centre. Hotels to be exempted from height restrictions? Why? Either height restrictions are a good idea or they aren't. (I think they aren't.)
I am also worried about the lack of any real civic ambition. The square is the heart of the city. Is a convention centre really the best thing to go there?
To echo James Dann I am not happy about the siting of the stadium, a real kick in the teeth for NG's owners, who've done the right thing by the city.
Realistically this plan is not particularly amazing, and is unlikely to last ten years as is. So I think we'll see a different city emerge than the one envisaged, although that's not to say that it won't be very influenced by this document.
Obviously all at first glance.