Posts by WH
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
Obviously the right to be free from state supervision has to be weighed against the right to be free from harm from others (terrorism in this case).
I laughed out loud when Ron Mark snarked that Keith Locke had supported the rise of the Khmer Rouge and the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan. It was completely irrelevant and completely relevant all at the same time.
It is a question of balance, and I don't trust people who regard the state with a fear approching paranoia to strike that balance on my behalf.
-
The requirements (Paul Buchanan and the SG distilled them down to 5 coherent points fairly easily, so I really don't think it is that complicated or incoherent) seem to be: Ideology (shared political motivation) or the intention to force govt into something it wouldn't otherwise do; means - you gotta have the stuff and expertise to carry it out; a real plan - specific and coherent and WELL UNDERWAY; result will be loss of life or significant harm to people or harm to infrastructure that will result in harm to people
Well said. The media discussion on the TSA so far (particularly CloseUp on Friday and Agenda on Sunday) has been disappointing. This is too important a subject to leave to the likes of professional dissidents such as Locke, Minto and Hager, who represent basically noone.
I think it is a mistake to allow the possibility that terrorism legislation could be misused to override the reality that people who plan politically inspired violence need to be stopped.
-
As Graeme noted in a previous post, is one of the issues whether the alleged plotting reached a sufficiently advanced stage to attract a charge? Ordinarily one can only be charged with an actual attempt, which is obviously not satisfactory where indiscriminate slaughter is intended. You hear rumours and don't know what to believe, I sometimes find.
There is a trend of people calling controversial legislation "incoherent", when it probably just needs to be clarified or amended. Lots of countries have anti-terror laws. I for one am against terrorism.
Chase-me-ladies could be the funniest site on the entire interweb.
http://chasemeladies.blogspot.com/2005/10/malkins-and-hinderaker-not-of-age-but.html
http://chasemeladies.blogspot.com/2004/05/i-agree-with-abu-hamza-up-to-point.html
-
The mere fact [Mr Broad] chose the Terrorism Suppression Act means he should resign.
I wish Tariana Turia would resign. Not because she did anything wrong during the "terror raids", mind, but because she is a twit.
-
There are vast tracts of land owned by the Crown (such as the conservation estate) and State Owned Enterprises (the remnants of the old government monopoly services/businesses, including forests and farms) that are subject to unresolved Waitangi Tribunal (Treaty) claims
Do such claims fall within the ambit of the Treaty negotiations process?
the argument that Maori claims are historical and they should ignore or get over them is criminal. Breaches of the Treaty are real, continuous and contemporary
Are the claims capable of being resolved by negotiation? Or is the struggle for sovereignty the only means by which these claims can be resolved?
I am a fifth generation Pakeha New Zealander and I want my place in this land to be founded on fair dealings with Maori.
What does that require?
-
Mutu also doubts there was "anything remotely threatening going on up in those mountains", in part because "if there was, I think I would have heard about it". But, she concurs, "the whole of Maoridom has been traumatised by these raids. Attitudes are certainly hardening. Eventually, I think, we will get together, and we will discuss how to handle it. And yes, I can see a day we will go back to our land and reclaim it. There will not be military action, because that is not our way, but we will go on to the state-owned farms, into the forests, to the wild places where very few people live, and we will say: 'This is ours, now try and stop us taking it. We've been patient, we've believed your fine words, for too long. We know what is right'".
Sounds like the new Minister for Treaty Negotiations has his work cut out.
-
I think the extremes in society do some important work in helping the moderate majority dwell in a fair&reasonable political climate; the centre of the bell curve is defined as much by the vocal fringes as by the general public.
I agree that those with unconventional beliefs have an equal right to participate in the political process, and I wouldn't say that oestensibly "moderate" views are necessarily better than the alternatives. On the other hand, if you want to engage and connect with others, and therefore participate effectively in the political process, you need to understand (and to some degree empathise with) other people's viewpoints and concerns. I think this imperative tends to herd people towards the middle of the bell curve, and towards more constructive communication styles. Being indifferent to what everyone around you believes in and cares about has unwelcome consequences.
There is a link between an individual's intellectual, emotional and spiritual development. Whatever collateral benefits extremes provide to society, sometimes I wonder whether the social alienation (even dysfunction) of some of those involved is something to regret.
-
There's a real disconnect between the stated goal (ie, changing the world) and the chosen means (presenting an unattractive and unpersuasive aspect to the world they wish to persuade).
Politics is not just about developing our own vision of how the world should be, its about how we organise ourselves in light of the fact that we all see the world differently. The "system" is not a monolithic structure that was set up to oppress the masses, its a constantly renegotiated compromise of incompatible forces and desires. Boo to the far left, and its mirror image on the right.
-
Unofficial version - got the boot due to a poor performance in his justice portfolio and for making a pigs ear of handling the Electoral Finance Bill once it was released.
I had read somewhere that Burton had been "underperforming" in his portfolio. He came across well on TV (ie, plausibly and as a rounded sort of chap) but how much can you really take from a TV interview. Still, that's more than I could say about some others. Don't judge a book et cetera.
I do wonder whether any amount of adroit media handling could have protected the EFB from criticism from a free speech orientated press/law society/National Party.
-
Placing the emphasis too strongly on US actions runs the risk of not recognizing the dynamics of Iraqi politics.
Those dynamics were known in advance, but I agree the focus should be on resolving the problem rather than rehashing arguments about the cause.
May G*d have mercy on his soul.