The Empire Strikes Back
I’m glad to see I was not the only one who felt uneasy reading the Dominion Post headline “Labour strikes back at sect“, detailing how the Government is looking to strip the Exclusive Brethren of labour law exemptions in response to their foray into politics.
It has all the overtones of a vengeful Government seeking to punish a group simply because they campaigned against them in an election. It’s a style of politics we don’t see overtly in New Zealand, or not until now.
idiot at No Right Turn and Greenie Phil U share the sense of discomfort.
I actually disagree with the law having a faith based exemption. Just as I don’t want power stations not built because of the spiritual life-flow of rivers, I don’t want some people to have a different employment law because of their religious belief.
But the way the Government plays it as an issue of revenge is what makes a lot of people nervous. As we already see a Government which believes it is above the law and will attack anyone who threatens it (including the Auditor-General), this is just another symptom of a sick culture.
September 25th, 2006 at 3:15 pm
What’s with the triple negative in the first sentence?
September 25th, 2006 at 3:18 pm
Well, it is another data point in support of anonymous donations to political parties, and shows how those who fall foul of Labour risk undesireable attention.
September 25th, 2006 at 3:22 pm
Yeah that was messy – I have changed it.
September 25th, 2006 at 3:24 pm
I’ll leave it to Graeme Edgler to quote chapter and verse from the constitutional law rulebook, and I look forward to his contribution.
I may be wrong, but isn’t there an unwritten convention that no government should seek to target an individual or narrowly defined class of individuals for mala fide reasons? Of course, this is a slightly grey-scale area, in that the government would seek to revoke a carve-out for the EB, bringing them into line with everyone else. But the timing and the veiled threat is hardly a good look from a government that promised to bring nothing less than the highest standards of integrity to public office.
September 25th, 2006 at 3:25 pm
If we put the Brethren’s foray into politics aside for a moment – why should they be exempt from the same rules and regulations in the workplace that everyone else has to follow… I find it astonishing that the law was ever allowed to make “allowances” for them anyway!
September 25th, 2006 at 3:25 pm
Hey DPF I believe we got there first!!!
http://www.sirhumphreys.com/adolf_fiinkensein/2006/sep/24/labour_contracts_near_fatal_bout_of_hodsons_desease
September 25th, 2006 at 3:26 pm
There are definite paralells with the Nazi vendetta against the Jews with the rise of Hitler. This action can also be judged alongside the Prime Minister’s underhand covert leaking of lies to get rid of her Police Commissioner (Doone) to replace him with one more sympathetic to her cause, and the constructive dismissal of the independent Electricity Commissioner who chose to do what was right rather than what was politically acceptable. Then there is the hostile bullying of Parliament’s Auditor General to bludgeon him into resiling from the draft of his report on Electoral spending. It all adds up to one word CORRUPTION…PAY THE MONEY BACK LIABOUR.
September 25th, 2006 at 3:26 pm
This is a strange time in NZ politics, and I too feel uneasy about the way Labour are weilding the power of the state (not just this story, but in the previous ‘corruption’ issues as well). I see this behaviour as contributing to the downward trend in the polls rather than the traction of any one issue in particular.
As the last shreds of decency fall away from the Clarke regime, the skeleton of tyranny is becoming increasingly apparent, so that it looks like even a Don Brash led National Govt could take the next election (I did say strange times!).
Those of us from the left who consider the issues rather than the party line, have nowhere left to turn – left standing, bewildered…
Getting back to the topic – I am wondering if all exemptions based upon cultural diversity will be repealed from policy… if not, why not?
September 25th, 2006 at 3:27 pm
A spirited defence of the need to deal with the EB is produced here by, er, David Farrar!
http://www.kiwiblog.co.nz/2006/09/brethren_must_be_isolated.html
September 25th, 2006 at 3:28 pm
We are seeing the very worst in governance from the Socialists. A vengeful feral venal beast that says If you oppose us we will destroy you with all the power the State has at its disposal.NZ is now being viewed as a Pacific banana republic as witnessed by the Letterman show and also other media around the world.Rather than being the centre of the universe that the government and their supporters think; we are a very small badly governed economically vulnerable island that is living well beyond its means.
September 25th, 2006 at 3:32 pm
Sam. On the matter of all exemptions based on cultural diversity (what a wonderfully leftist term!)and religeous activity, I think you are absolutely right. As a ‘church’ person it has always irritated me to hear colleagues bludging favours for all and sundry on the grounds that somehow we are ‘deserving.’
September 25th, 2006 at 3:32 pm
I would have thought that just now, given all that Labour has recently brought upon itself, such a threat would not be the best strategy for winning over the hearts and minds of the electorate. I just don’t think the electorate has an appetite for that kind of threat of retribution. What was Dyson thinking?
September 25th, 2006 at 3:35 pm
So reading the article carefully what we find out is that the evil nazi agenda for Labour re the EB is to……make them obey the same laws as everyone else!
It’s Hitlerism revisted right enough folks.
September 25th, 2006 at 3:38 pm
Sam. On the matter of all exemptions based on cultural diversity (what a wonderfully leftist term!)and religeous activity, I think you are absolutely right. As a ‘church’ person it has always irritated me to hear colleagues bludging favours for all and sundry on the grounds that somehow we are ‘deserving.’
September 25th, 2006 at 3:42 pm
sonic, please do read sections 23 and 24 of the Employment Relations Act, would won’t find the exemptions are for the EB only. Notwithstanding that, I do not for a minute agree that any religion should get special treatment.
September 25th, 2006 at 3:43 pm
I’m with the consensus here: I don’t like the timing. The exemption is bad law specifically inserted at the request of the EB (and helped through by National and, in a bizarre twist, the Greens) and should be turfed out. But doing it as a direct reaction to the EB attacking the government is just plain dodgy.
With that said, the obvious question occurs: when would be a good time if we allow that “bad timing” is the only reason not to repeal this? Surely all we do there is create an eternal incentive for the EB to stay on the attack against Labour in as dirty a manner as possible, because Labour would then be being perceived to be seeking retribution if they did their job and cleaned up a bad law.
And it’s even possible that now might be the best time to pursue repealing this exemption because it is so clear to the public that the EB’s claims of political disengagement are total bullshit. At a time when the EB’s political activities are less attention-grabbing it might harder to find a majority in favour of stripping them of their clearly unearned “politically uninvolved” status under the law.
Messy whichever way you look at it.
September 25th, 2006 at 3:45 pm
sonic,
two issues.
1. If you read carefully, there is generally no support for the exemptions, what is bizarre is the timing. Even if it is for “good” reasons the look is damning.
2. No doubt you will now be able and willing to defend Don Brash’s stance on “one Law for all” for that is essentially your argument above.
Welcome aboard the “right train” sonic, it is gathering momentum and surely has the potential to go supersonic in short order.
Bring on the early election
September 25th, 2006 at 3:48 pm
You mean just because they have been exposed as hiring a private detective to spy on Labour party members, having secret meetings with Don Brash to plot how to overturn the election result and lying about doing all of the above, and therfore that they have given up their rights to special treatment under the law, we should all agree that this is fascism?
Sorry, no sale.
September 25th, 2006 at 3:53 pm
pdq & DavidW
If you stop feeding the trolls they might just go away. You have to remember that you cannot change the mind of someone with insufficient intellect to critically engage with issues rather than simply run with the party-line…thus you are wasting your time and encouraging the trolls to continue spouting their ‘opinion’…
September 25th, 2006 at 3:59 pm
Sam, I’m not a member of any political party and my views are my own.
They are not offensive, do not contain swearing or anything off topic.
I’m forced to conclude that they are just too effective for your liking.
September 25th, 2006 at 4:03 pm
Hey don’t you have someones rubbish bin to go fosic about in little rodent?
September 25th, 2006 at 4:06 pm
No, I stay away from your blog Murray.
xxx
September 25th, 2006 at 4:09 pm
oh look..!..it’s murray again…sharing his pearls of wisdom and sparkling prose..
(y’know he feeds on bile..eh..?..that’s how he is able to regurgitate at will..)
phil(whoar.co.nz)
September 25th, 2006 at 4:17 pm
Sonic, don’t forget the other half of what the private detective said.
Obviously, you need reminding, just like much of the MSM.
Liarbour have been raking through the rubbish bins of the National opposition and spying on senior Nats.
Geddit?, Dear Leader’s government, Helen’s little helpers.
The Exclusive Bretheren , despite the odd meeting with Don Brash, have nothing to do with the National party.
Just because the Exclusive Bretheren support National, does not mean National support the EB.
Indeed, many Nats, if not most or all, wish the EB had kept well out of Election 2005.
May I repeat, the PI accused Labour directly of spying on National and Nats like John Key have seen strange people rifling through their rubbish.
Or Sonic, like dear leader, are your ears only open for the information that suits you and you alone, ignoring all other evidence.
September 25th, 2006 at 4:27 pm
oh and tremain’s cartoon today seems very apt.
http://www.stuff.co.nz/cartoon_galleries.html
September 25th, 2006 at 4:30 pm
Darren, we have no evidence (except the word of a professional liar of course) that Labour has hired private eyes.
We know for a fact the EB’s have (oh and how you all wailed about that before it was proved)
Indeed considering that Clark controls the security services why would she have to?
“The Exclusive Bretheren , despite the odd meeting with Don Brash, have nothing to do with the National party’
I can think of 1.3 million things they have to do with National.
Still easily solved, Don Brash stands up and says National do not want any more of their money or help….
We are waiting Don.
September 25th, 2006 at 4:31 pm
darren
You can’t reason a person out of a position they didn’t reason themselves into.
It’s not my quote but it’s sooo applicable to sonic.
September 25th, 2006 at 4:34 pm
“New poll deals another blow to Labour”
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/section/story.cfm?c_id=1&ObjectID=10402871
Actually, it shows stable results for the last three of these polls, but comes after the Exclusive Bretheren PI revelations. So National appear to be holding onto their previous position. I think we need another poll or two for a clear picture.
September 25th, 2006 at 4:36 pm
Have they got 61 votes to pass this legislation. How can Peter Dunne support this attack on religious exemptions. Or is he on a suicide mission. And the motivation. Making public policy up on the hoof to get revenge. Labour is a wounded animal and are in a very very dangerous mood.
September 25th, 2006 at 4:44 pm
Indeed, I noted that the way in which Labour has basically gone feral on the EB is a major factor in favour of anonymous donors being protected. This is an extremely concerning trend.
The EB are, from a National POV, a pain in the ass. They are also citizens and are entitled to be involved in the political process as much as any other group or individual. The attitude displayed by Labour and its apologists has been extremely disconcerting and, without wishing to overstate things, undemocratic.
Whether the EB should be allowed special treatment under labour law is another topic entirely and should not be dependant on them remaining outside the political process.
September 25th, 2006 at 4:47 pm
The way I understand it Churches don’t pay local council rates, well not in accordance with their land/capital value as individuals and business do.
Is this why the churches have always had a moderate approach to legislation of prostitution, homosexuality and more recently the legalised union of homosexual couples via the civil union bill? Are they scared of having their privileged position removed, their own special consideration?
This EB debacle is a fair warning to all pressure groups to back off, don’t campaign against the Labour Govt, it will strike back with great vengeance!
Still the end result is good, no special rules for special groups is a fine thing, sort of like what was talked about at Orewa.
September 25th, 2006 at 4:48 pm
” are entitled to be involved in the political process as much as any other group or individual”
They exclude themselevs by not voting or joining parties. Sorry, but putting out untrue facts under false names while hiring investigators to dig dirt on relatives of the PM is not part of the normal political process in this country.
September 25th, 2006 at 4:56 pm
” Sorry, but putting out untrue facts under false names while hiring …”
Sorry to be a pedant, but Facts are true by definition,
September 25th, 2006 at 5:00 pm
Sonic:
Oh FFS… can we just assume you’ll have a Pavlovian snarling fit everytime the EB are mentioned and leave it at that? Everyone is saying this exemption should never have gotten out of committee, let alone onto the statute books and it should be abolished full stop. OK? That doesn’t mean the response from Dyson, and the timing, doesn’t beg – nay demand – to be seen as Muldoonoid vindictiveness in Labour Drag. Not only bad politics, which is bad enough, but dumb bad politics. OK?
September 25th, 2006 at 5:04 pm
Sonic Two wrongs dont make a right The end doesnt justify the means This is what the majority of good citizerns are signalling to the pollies and their supporters.The more the pollies and their supporters especially the Socialists keep yapping on the deeper they dig themselves into the hole.If they had a brain they would shut up that a deep breath and test the waters. Which part of “YOU ARE WRONG” doesnt Clark and her little helpers understand
September 25th, 2006 at 5:04 pm
Sonic Two wrongs dont make a right The end doesnt justify the means This is what the majority of good citizerns are signalling to the pollies and their supporters.The more the pollies and their supporters especially the Socialists keep yapping on the deeper they dig themselves into the hole.If they had a brain they would shut up take a deep breath and test the waters. Which part of “YOU ARE WRONG” doesnt Clark and her little helpers understand
September 25th, 2006 at 5:28 pm
I’ve posted Helen Clark my best shovel. If anyone out there in Netland owns a digger, could they please lend it to KKKlarKKK.
September 25th, 2006 at 5:41 pm
Revelations in Australia about EB schools show they just cut out chapters of Science text books they dont like and no computers in class of course. No modern novelists, and then some bits of 19th century novels are censored. Of course there is no chance of the kids going to university ( and they thus have to employ outsiders as teachers). The young people are told who they are going to marry and what job they will do. Of course all that reading of the Bible means they have good reading skills.
A retired chief of the Family Court of Australia says only one group ever approached him about having ’special treatment’ and it was the EB. Of course they are always wanting special treatment in employment matters. Strangely they only need to use the exemption from normal industrial processes so that members who stray can be sacked immediately.
The US has an tax exemption for religious organisations such as churches which is revoked if they start telling who to vote for . About time the EB lost their special privleges since they are highly active in politics and misuse their special employment status.
September 25th, 2006 at 5:49 pm
In the olden days you just needed to ask a cabbie what was “happening” and he would know.Not any more. Unless you’re a Corporate customer(at least in Auckland)your driver is probably a neuro-surgeon recently arrived from a some despotic hell-hole where Labour’s recent excesses would be considered as positively benign and that Helen shares a cloud with whichever saints or Gods they adore.
Ah..deep sigh….I expect democracy is the best way.
September 25th, 2006 at 6:01 pm
Didn’t Liarbore set up an anti bullying program for schools, it’s a shame they don’t lead by example.
Gullen also made veiled threats to the press about some tax issue he would review if they continued to denigrate his fascist little party.
I think we could safely add a few other sins to the list as well as CORRUPTION.
September 25th, 2006 at 6:19 pm
I think the rationale behind the exemption is that the Exklusiv Bruederschaft is somekind of unwordly group of church believers who hold all truck with the world is evil.
Hence they must cut themselves off from all worldly influences and associations.
That unwordliness sort of falls apart when you start getting so chummy with Donald “Geheimnespolezei” Brash.
Basically if they are prepared to inspect other people’s private lives they should be prepared to have their workplaces inspected.
September 25th, 2006 at 6:45 pm
The whole EB thing is being used to distract attention from the pledge cards and their taxpayer funding of those cards.
September 25th, 2006 at 6:47 pm
Clark has had a year since the election to change this piece of legislation as an act of retribution. Doing it now that Brethren have been found to be meddling so deeply in politics can just as easily be interpreted as strong management and falling into line with Brash’s one rule for all policy.
Interpretations (like dreams) are free.
September 25th, 2006 at 6:53 pm
It’s wrong to have faith_based exemptions for any group. And I’m not suprised that Labour would feel aggrieved by the actions of the Brethren.
Frankly, given the revelations about the way the sect operates, its repressive and sometimes illegal behavior, I see no problem in forcing them to run their businesses according to the same rules as everyone else.
What is the justification for doiong anything else?
Philip
(I would like to be able to say that my faith requires me never to read or complete any forms received from the agents of Satan called IRD, and my human rights are affronted bý even being asked to do it. Which is pretty much what the Brethren seem to have said about the industrial relations law)
September 25th, 2006 at 7:43 pm
Religion is essentially a mental health problem….a childish response to fear of the dark.
September 25th, 2006 at 7:57 pm
I see Don has admitted to meeting the EB SINCE the election after telling everybody he hadnt. Can he no longer lie straight in bed ?
September 25th, 2006 at 8:01 pm
He admitted meeting the Brethren BEFORE the last election.
September 25th, 2006 at 8:07 pm
Could it be that the law drafting people were “got
at” when the exclusions were originally inserted.
Reinforces Orewa 1 “One Law for All”. But ….
Dr Don’s latest announcement about not having any
further “formal” discussions with those EB inbreds
comes far too late. He’s been in reactive mode since this whole nasty mess started. Shows a certain lack of homework, and inability to think on his feet. It’s a worry!
September 25th, 2006 at 8:22 pm
Could it be that the law drafting people were “got at” when the exclusions were originally inserted.
That’s something you’ll have to ask the National Party who voted against removing it, in August 2000 (I think).
September 25th, 2006 at 8:28 pm
Fred – why don’t you go back to your corner and play with yourself? If you can’t contribute to the arguement about Labours autocratic behaviour, SHUT UP.
September 25th, 2006 at 8:37 pm
…..and don’t the sufferers get stroppy under pressure.
Keep thinking about it candy…the truth will set you free from both your gods and your demons.
September 25th, 2006 at 8:41 pm
I am not religious so your hogwash is wasted on me. However, why don’t you go to the Labour blogs where you will be at home with all the other Agnostics and Atheists.
September 25th, 2006 at 8:45 pm
Soooory Kimble you are out of date.
Agenda transcript:
LISA . Have you had private meetings with the Exclusive Brethren, and if so when did you have those meetings?
DON .I have one meeting since the election some many months ago.
Looking up where he says he didnt meet them after the election.
September 25th, 2006 at 8:47 pm
Come on candy…your slip is showing…don’t be shy.
Why would anyone have to go to a lefty blog if they were an aggy or an athy?
See your problem now?
September 25th, 2006 at 8:51 pm
How many people knew that the Brethren had a special exemption under employment law? Can we assume that NZ laws are open to insertions of exclusions, on grounds of no participation in the process or on religious grounds, has Nandor tested this?
How long has this exclusion been in force, and presumably if it’s in the current legislation it was either drafted or carried forward by Labour. As such it is Labour policy, which makes it very interesting.
September 25th, 2006 at 9:02 pm
Fred
As it happens I share you opinion, however there is no need to ram it down peoples throats. Isn’t that part of what religion is all about and what you don’t agree with.
September 25th, 2006 at 9:59 pm
With Clark’s Husky voice this let the children know that God is a man.
Clark elevated to God in kids’ production
25 September 2006
Her political supporters already worship her, but Prime Minister Helen Clark has been elevated to the position of God in an Auckland school-holiday theatre production.
And in a true sign of omnipresence Miss Clark will play the part without even being present in the theatre.
Sponsored Links
Prepare for an earthquake
How healthy are you?
Find out with a free
health test
A spokeswoman for Miss Clark confirmed to NZPA the Prime Minister would again play the voice of God in a production of Spike Milligan’s Badjelly the Witch, starting at Auckland’s Civic Theatre next week.
As the voice of God, Miss Clark is not required on stage. Her lines would be played from a pre-recorded tape.
Miss Clark’s voice was used in a two-week season of the play at Silo Theatre in Auckland last year.
The director of that production, Ben Crowder said the recording was a small but “absolutely critical role” in the play.
Miss Clark, as Arts and Culture Minister, had been asked to contribute to keep the oldies amused.
Advertisement
Advertisement
“Probably the Helen Clark voice is one of the few moments in the show which is more appreciated by the adult audience.”
September 25th, 2006 at 10:20 pm
So we don’t agree with the EB’s twist on religion. But why should they be demonised for it? I’m last time I checked that if you break the law in NZ it is normally determined by the Police and Court system not Helen and the lefty brigade.
So the EB get marginalised then who’s next? It’s not about sticking up for the EB’s, but sticking up for a minority group and everyones right to an opinion and free speech.
Helen only seems to support minorities when they step in line and promise their votes. Any one else apparently has no rights.
At the base level the EB’s believe the same as most on the right and it has nothing to do with religion. Clark and the rest of Labour are devoid of any moral or ethical standing and have spent the last 3 terms socially engineering the populous with disasterous effects.
September 25th, 2006 at 10:24 pm
So we don’t agree with the EB’s twist on religion. But why should they be demonised for it? I’m last time I checked that if you break the law in NZ it is normally determined by the Police and Court system not Helen and the lefty brigade.
So the EB get marginalised then who’s next? It’s not about sticking up for the EB’s, but sticking up for a minority group and everyones right to an opinion and free speech.
Helen only seems to support minorities when they step in line and promise their votes. Any one else apparently has no rights.
At the base level the EB’s believe the same as most on the right and it has nothing to do with religion. Clark and the rest of Labour are devoid of any moral or ethical standing and have spent the last 3 terms socially engineering the populous with disasterous effects.
September 25th, 2006 at 10:29 pm
Reading the comments above, I have a deja vu moment.
Specifically, refer to the well-known poem at the end of the following link
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Niemoller
September 25th, 2006 at 10:41 pm
Err…’ram’ what where?
More responding to 2 previous posts…check the sequence out clown.
This must be NZ….it’s all so sensitively collegiate.
September 26th, 2006 at 8:44 am
Every one seems to be missing the point of this post. Nowhere in the ERA does it say that in return for an exemption one must agree to waive one’s right to freedom of speech or one’s right to participate in a democracy.
Yet Dyson is threatening to review exemptions issued to the EB on the basis that they are have reneged on alleged promises made that are not required by the Act.
Any review (and reviews are not provided for in the ERA) would be dodgy at best, particularly if it revolves around alleged broken promises in favour of the government.
Watching Dyson on One News last night, I was hoping that the reporter would ask her under what authority she could make her threats of review. Sadly that didn’t happen.
Any way, if she follows through the EB will no doubt have grounds for a claim of abuse of office.
September 26th, 2006 at 1:14 pm
Doesn’t this government get bagged by the right for bending over backwards for minority groups? Even if this action is vengence, the fact of the matter is the EB’s have changed the behaviour that gave them the exemption in the first place and therefore should be removed.
September 26th, 2006 at 1:20 pm
pdq
I think Dyson was talking about reviewing the Act, rather than the exemption certificates.
September 26th, 2006 at 1:43 pm
Jeff, section 24(1) does not require a behaviour but rather a belief and I am sure the EB have not changed their beliefs.
DavidW, upon reflection you are probably right, although I am sure that I heard words to the effect that she was going to review the EB exemptions specifically as opposed to exemptions generally. Of course if it is the latter then that is entirely appropriate and proper, indeed I would go so far as to agree with the need for the removal of exemptions altogether.
September 26th, 2006 at 1:46 pm
Sideshowbob…Liabour did indeed set up a programme to stop bullying in Schools. She placed the Honourable Benson-Pope in charge of it.
Rostock..an interesting post on the EB Schools. Apart from the religious protocols how does it differ from the Maori Immersion Schools and the Muslim Schools… Which system appears to produce the most commercially successful graduates.?
September 26th, 2006 at 1:47 pm
From what I understand is that their
“belief” is that God will decide which party should be in government, hence the reason they do not vote. Clearly that “belief” has changed if they are trying to influence government using tactics other than votes.
September 26th, 2006 at 1:50 pm
pdq
yes, it certainly could have been seen that way. Inept, inaccurate and clumsy with appalling timing really but then perhaps it was a rare glimpse behing the carefully manicured and massaged wall that hides the real Labour machine in action. Spiteful and vindictive was the way it came across to me.
September 26th, 2006 at 2:10 pm
Jeff, the following is section 24(1):
(1)The chief executive may, for the purposes of section 23, issue a certificate of exemption to an employer who is an individual if the chief executive is satisfied that the employer is a practising member of a religious society or order whose doctrines or beliefs preclude membership of any organisation or body other than the religious society or order of which the employer is a member.
You will note that the section requires a belief that preculdes them belonging to any other group other than their religious group. That belief has not changed. I trust that that assists with your understanding.
September 26th, 2006 at 2:25 pm
Does any other group but the EB have this exemption?
September 26th, 2006 at 2:29 pm
sonic, the exemption is available to every employer in NZ (provided they meet the section 23 requirements that there are no more than 20 employees and none are union members) should they hold such religious beliefs, it is not drafted to be limited to the EB only.
September 26th, 2006 at 3:30 pm
When the group of Exclusive Brethren came to me to check out their understanding of the RMA and the claims they were making against the Greens I formed the very clear opinion that they were a group of individuals acting as such and not acting as “The Exclusive Brethren Church.” (I have had many other Christians seek my advise or assistance in coming to terms with District Plans etc which quote the Maori Genesis myth as thought it were fact while they would never quote the Christian Genesis.)
I also understand that the exemption certificate is given to individual enterprises and is not a blanket exemption for the Ex Brethren.
Hence if the Government wants to act it seems to me it should act only against those individuals in relation to their own worksites. They should no more act against all Exclusive Brethren than they should Act against all Muslims because a few are terrorists.
Guilt by association is contrary to our legal and constitutional tradition and this sets a dangerous precedent.
September 26th, 2006 at 3:42 pm
When the group of Exclusive Brethren came to me to check out their understanding of the RMA and the claims they were making against the Greens I formed the very clear opinion that they were a group of individuals acting as such and not acting as “The Exclusive Brethren Church.” (I have had many other Christians seek my advise or assistance in coming to terms with District Plans etc which quote the Maori Genesis myth as thought it were fact while they would never quote the Christian Genesis.)
I also understand that the exemption certificate is given to individual enterprises and is not a blanket exemption for the Ex Brethren.
Hence if the Government wants to act it seems to me it should act only against those individuals in relation to their own worksites. They should no more act against all Exclusive Brethren than they should Act against all Muslims because a few are terrorists.
Guilt by association is contrary to our legal and constitutional tradition and this sets a dangerous precedent.
September 26th, 2006 at 3:43 pm
Does any other group but the EB have this exemption?
Not is anyone else entitled to it, does anyone else actually have it?
September 26th, 2006 at 10:42 pm
sonic, you would have to make an OIA request to the Department of Labour for that information.
I doubt that you will get it because of the Privacy Act.
But any employer with such a religious belief with no more than 20 non-unionised employees could apply. That fact that unions haven’t goose-steped into workplaces would explian why the provision hasn’t been used widely.
September 26th, 2006 at 11:00 pm
But sonic, I should add that if no one else has taken the opportunity to keep unions out of their workplaces on such grounds then that is an indictment on them and not those who have lawfully taken such steps. No conspiracy here.
September 27th, 2006 at 8:54 am
So the answer seems to be that only the EB have this exemption?
September 27th, 2006 at 9:11 am
Aristottle is a donkey. In fact, Aristottle is the only donkey I know of, so all donkeys are Aristottles and all Aristottles are donkeys.
It is the famous old example of universal sets, and logic that does not stack up.
Your argument is an example of this type of logic, Sonic. It goes one step beyond what can be proved from the available evidence, and is therefore an assumption.
September 28th, 2006 at 9:08 pm
Spiteful as this might seem, the Greens have made a valid point – Brethren businesses often employ non-Brethrens and thus the reasons given for the exemptions are not actually valid.
As I understand it, the whole legal basis has arisen out of Labour’s insistence that a union rep must be allowed workplace access regardless of the employer’s private property rights. Wouldn’t it just be a better idea to revoke such access rights altogether, as the previous law did?