Comments on: The Empire Strikes Back

By: TIC

TIC — Thu, 28 Sep 2006 09:08:47 +0000

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?

By: Peter S

Peter S — Tue, 26 Sep 2006 21:11:28 +0000

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.

By: sonic

sonic — Tue, 26 Sep 2006 20:54:50 +0000

So the answer seems to be that only the EB have this exemption?

By: pdq

pdq — Tue, 26 Sep 2006 11:00:11 +0000

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.

By: pdq

pdq — Tue, 26 Sep 2006 10:42:47 +0000

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.

By: sonic

sonic — Tue, 26 Sep 2006 03:43:30 +0000

Does any other group but the EB have this exemption?

Not is anyone else entitled to it, does anyone else actually have it?

By: Owen McShane

Owen McShane — Tue, 26 Sep 2006 03:42:00 +0000

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.

By: Owen McShane

Owen McShane — Tue, 26 Sep 2006 03:30:34 +0000

By: pdq

pdq — Tue, 26 Sep 2006 02:29:49 +0000

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.

By: sonic

sonic — Tue, 26 Sep 2006 02:25:28 +0000

Does any other group but the EB have this exemption?

By: pdq

pdq — Tue, 26 Sep 2006 02:10:56 +0000

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.

By: DavidW

DavidW — Tue, 26 Sep 2006 01:50:45 +0000

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.

By: Jeff

Jeff — Tue, 26 Sep 2006 01:47:56 +0000

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.

By: baxter

baxter — Tue, 26 Sep 2006 01:46:31 +0000

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.?

By: pdq

pdq — Tue, 26 Sep 2006 01:43:02 +0000

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.

By: DavidW

DavidW — Tue, 26 Sep 2006 01:20:15 +0000

pdq
I think Dyson was talking about reviewing the Act, rather than the exemption certificates.

By: Jeff

Jeff — Tue, 26 Sep 2006 01:14:52 +0000

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.

By: pdq

pdq — Mon, 25 Sep 2006 20:44:39 +0000

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.

By: Fred

Fred — Mon, 25 Sep 2006 10:41:55 +0000

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.

By: jocko

jocko — Mon, 25 Sep 2006 10:29:50 +0000

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