Steve Crow wins again
August 19th, 2008 at 2:44 pm by David FarrarSteve Crow has won in court, but really he was going to be a winner regardless of the court ruling.
The publicity given to Mr Crow’s porn empire by Family First, Auckland City Council and others has been invaluable. He literally could not pay enough for all the free publicity. Rather than try and get the boobs on bikes parade banned, they should demand a share of the profits from his sex expo.
Why does Crow do boobs on bikes? To publicise his sex expo. He loses money on the actual parade – it is free. He doesn;t give a damn about whether or not the parade actually happens – he just wants the publicity about it.
He is secretly parying that Cathy Casey and co do lie down on the road to try and block it. It would be a god send for him. Guarantee a better TV story.
Mr Crow is a very smart man.
Also a very smart man, is public law specialist Dean Knight. Dean blogged last week that there was almost no chance of the Council being able to block the parade under the Bill of Rights. Dean concluded:
I am very confident in saying that, to the extent that the bylaw requires citizens to seek prior approval from a state body for a protest in a public place, it is patently inconsistent with the Bill of Rights and other fundamental common law rights, and is therefore unreasonable and invalid. There was, rightly, a public outcry a few years ago when Wellington City attempted to do this; it backed down. Also, it’s the very thing that many folk are pointing the stick at the Chinese government at the moment with the Olympics in Beijing. The requirement of prior approval is outrageous, particularly in the light of the restriction of protests and so forth.
He goes onto say:
It gets a little more complicated when one deals with other expressive activities. The reality is that we grade the nature of the expression and place differing degrees of importance on different types of speech. Political protest at the top. Speech lacking in intrinsic value at the bottom, arguably things like pornography etc. Commercial-related speech somewhere in the middle. That’s a wee bit controversial but probably accurate. In this case, we might see the full range of expression. Principally, the parade is related to a commercial activity. But it’s also got a pornographic titillation element – something slightly gratuitous. And, given the previous controversy and dealings, it’s also probably capable of being regarded as a protest or similar political assembly.
His colleague Steven Price then details a conversation he had with Dean on the legal issues:
Steven: You know what? I think it might depend on the amount of jiggle.
Dean: I think that’s right.
Steven: If there’s more jiggle, then it looks more sexualised – so arguably more lewd and offensive. Then controlling the parade fits better with the purposes of the Local Government Act, and the offences of offensive behaviour and indecent exposure. You’ve got less wiggle room for an argument based on the significance of the speech. More jiggle – less wiggle.
Dean: No, I disagree. If there’s more jiggling, there’s more of a political component to the protest. It is deliberately provocative. It underscores the parade’s message being more open about sexuality. It emphasises that the protest is defying convention, and the council’s attempts to scotch it. There’s less reason to protect an unjiggly naked protest, because the nakedness is less central to the protesters’ purpose. Jiggling provides better grounds for a defence for boobs on bikes. More jiggle – more wiggle.
Now’s that a legal conversation you don’t get to have very often!
Finally Steven notes:
Such is the stuff of academic discourse. Though it’s fair to say that Dean doesn’t normally evince this degree of interest in women’s breasts.
I burst out laughing when reading that. Those who know Dean probably did likewise. Others should be able to work it out!
As it so happens, I will be in Auckland tomorrow. Despite what some might think, I won’t be there for the Parade – for two reasons. Firstly the plastic fantastics that were on display last year look pretty awful from what I saw in the photos – you can’t beat natural. Secondly I actually think partially covered up is far far more sexy.
August 19th, 2008 at 2:56 pm
More tits in jafa land.
DILLIGAF.
Vote:August 19th, 2008 at 3:00 pm
“Mr Crow is a very smart man”
Maybe? Maybe not? It doesn’t really take much to look smarter than the people who are opposing him…
Vote:August 19th, 2008 at 3:00 pm
Can I also add that the subject of Steven’s last remark can neither confirm nor deny whether he burst out laughing when he read it too…! *grin*
Vote:August 19th, 2008 at 3:04 pm
More jiggle, less wiggle. Now there’s a campaign slogan. Which party will use it? Less wiggle could refer to Winston (as in wiggle room). More jiggle? Perhaps the ETS needs a bit of a jiggle. The EFA?
Vote:August 19th, 2008 at 3:05 pm
I take it Dean is a homosexual
Vote:August 19th, 2008 at 3:08 pm
Although Steve Crow has won, have the others lost? They also got publicity. In a case like this there are no losers if you define winning as generating publicity. Who would support Family First if there were no family values to defend? And for the other councilors as well. For some this is the only time in 3 years they get a mention in the NZ Herald.
Vote:August 19th, 2008 at 3:25 pm
Very astute point berend. Everybody wins – kind of like a freely consented transaction in a market economy….
Vote:August 19th, 2008 at 3:32 pm
“Very astute point berend. Everybody wins – kind of like a freely consented transaction in a market economy….”
Please keep common sense and reason out of discussion thanks. This is NZ, it’s against the law. Try funelling some money through some secret trust – it fits so much better with the kiwi culture.
Vote:August 19th, 2008 at 3:34 pm
Nice to know that not all exposed titty and/or other forms of public debauchery in our fair land stems directly from the evil machinations of Labour’s depraved “rainbow faction” as many here would have it!
Vote:August 19th, 2008 at 3:37 pm
I suppose it illustrates the City’s culture. It certainly gives it a grotty image.
Vote:August 19th, 2008 at 3:38 pm
That “clever man” also publishes “Uncensored” Magazine, which does not strike me as a publication with which cleverness could be associated. “9/11 inside job” articles, commercial airliners spreading biological warfare agents, the US military starting and controlling hurricanes, Alien spacecraft technology cornered by the US military, etc, etc………..NOT clever…….Unless, of course, you argue that there is money to be made out of people that stuffed in the head……….hey! same goes for the porn, too……….
Vote:August 19th, 2008 at 3:39 pm
RRM: I didn’t see that written. I’m pretty sure that if the evil Lairbour caucus hadn’t increasingly encouraged the degradation of moral standards in this great country, in direct contravention of the directions in the bible, that outrages like this would not be occurring. In fact, the very fibre of our country is being weakened as I write this, purely because Helen Klarkk is our Prime Minister. Until such a time as the election is held, I suggest that everyone eat extra doses of All Bran so as to improve our fibre ratio, once John Key is installed in his rightful place you will be able to return to your normal daily rations.
Vote:August 19th, 2008 at 3:58 pm
I’m gonna go out on a limb here PaulL and say you probably weren’t in favour of Auckland’s Hero Parade either?
And yet strangely….this was done under the National regime of the 90s…
Vote:August 19th, 2008 at 3:58 pm
People have also described Tatu’s manager as “clever” for being able to sell moist lesbian schoolgirls kissing in a music vedio.
Personally I’d think you were a moron if you couldn’t sell moist lesbian schoolgirls kissing in a music video.
(You’re welcome for the hit traffic David)
Vote:August 19th, 2008 at 4:03 pm
The Auckland City Council has cocked up on boobs on bikes and has made a complete dick of itself. The decision could have gone no other way. Now Crow wil have to make sure the boobs don’t jiggle too much…
Vote:August 19th, 2008 at 4:08 pm
The saddest thing about this has been to see the liberal-left lining up openly siding with the Christian prudes on this one. If people like Cathy Cathy are so opposed to some women parading like this, isn’t the best option to ignore it and keep away from it?
The tradition of feminists uniting with Christian prudes against pornography, erotica, nudity and sexuality is a fairly sad and counter-productive one, so I hope we’re not about to go back down that track….
But it says a lot about the state of the so-called left in NZ. It’s unfortunate that whereas being leftwing used to embrace ideas of freedom and liberation increasingly the left has jettisoned such concepts and words, allowing the rightwing to appropriate them. Traditionally it’s been the rightwing that have favoured a socially conservative approach and has been about the state telling us how to live our lives, about censoring things, restricting activities, but increasingly the left have adopted this approach.
Perhaps it’s time for a new libertine-style left…
Bryce
Vote:http://www.liberation.org.nz
August 19th, 2008 at 4:20 pm
I think if you’ve got standards – to hell with anyone else. So Cathey Casey was standing up for family morality – she is a councillor of the Auckland City Council. It is her role to stand up and represent the views of the people. There are a great deal of people in Auckland who oppose the Boobs on Bikes (for obvious reasons). Just because a small proportion of people here agree with Steve Crow (who is a sad excuse for a human being) doesn’t make the motivation behind Ms Casey’s stand any less valid.
isn’t the best option to ignore it and keep away from it?
That argument is not only lazy, it’s deplorably weak. If we accept there are socially acceptable (and socially unacceptable) values in this country then people have a right to protest about them. Just because some people on this blog doesn’t think it’s a big deal, then that doesn’t make it universally stupid to protest.
Opinions do differ from liberal thought. I’ve said it once, I’ll say it again – liberals don’t understand values because they lack them. The definition of a classic liberal should be broadened to include “vacuum of moral standards”.
Mr Crow is a very smart man.
I rest my case.
Vote:August 19th, 2008 at 4:27 pm
Sigh…
You know women might think they have come a long way in NZ – it was our country after all that was the first to give women the vote -but how low are we prepared to stoop to give a few pathetic men their jollies.
Queen Street is a public place, why should anyone, going about their lawful business, be subjected to bare breasted women riding harley motorbikes (that issuch a cliche!)
Particularly when their are breast feeding mothers in this country, that are often treated as perverts when they choose to legitimately breast feed their babies when out in public.
I don’t care if Steve Crow is smart, Hitler was also very clever.
It is because we have a vacuum of moral leadership in our country that men like Steve Crow, prosper.
Let’s not forget that it was this same man, that wanted to film a pregnant woman giving birth
for one of his little porno flicks. I hope that makes all the guys watching the parade tomorrow feel know they are in great company!
This parade only serves to bolster the ego of an already sick man and reinforces the idea that women are objects in the minds of any man watching it. It makes me sick.
[DPF: I hold no candle for the parade. It is a commercial promotion for Crow. However I would observe that I doubt anyone will see breasts they don't want to, as the 100,000 crowd tends to mean you won't see anything unless you aggressively push yourself forward.]
Vote:August 19th, 2008 at 4:30 pm
Ah, Bryce, refer my comment on another thread. Many on the left have much in common with the conservatives on the right. They want to tell people how to live their lives in some areas, and in other areas they want a complete lack of government oversight over private lives. The only difference is their choice of targets – the conservatives would ban abortion and allow physical discipline of children, some lefties would allow abortion and ban the physical discipline of children. Same dog, different colour.
David C – I thought the All Bran reference would give it away. I guess nobody went broke underestimating the intelligence of the average kiwiblog commentor…
Vote:August 19th, 2008 at 4:31 pm
democracymum
The older ones tend to stoop a bit lower than the younger ones… just the way it is really, gravity over time and all that.
Vote:August 19th, 2008 at 4:35 pm
I wonder why nobody has cited the RMA? If New Zealand is to maintain its international reputation as a paradise, then only natural, non-enhanced riders should be allowed, just as sports events ban steroids- the predominance of surgically enhanced breasts “the plastic fantastics” [as DPF put it] was a disgrace in last year’s parade.
democracymum, surely women will be unable to feed their children naturally until they are free to bare their breasts in public?
Vote:August 19th, 2008 at 4:38 pm
Really what do you want? a real time non photo shop of elderly helen clark nee davis or some young thing with a tight sexy scimpy dressed body enhanced with silicon, long loose sexy hair on the back of a noisy tractor ridden by a old fart wearing handlebars mo and a ponytail ,the girl who looks at you as if you are a blue cod, and remember helen made whores legal,its a business,and think there are now bonk shops on all street corners and next to schools (its a career option,)thanks to liarbor SO BRING ON THE FALSE TITS , like the photo shop of helen its a LAUGH
Vote:August 19th, 2008 at 4:39 pm
A victory for wankers everywhere.
Vote:August 19th, 2008 at 4:46 pm
Guys you can make all the jokes you like but it is a question of respect.
I’ll hazard a guess that only the sickest of perverts would want to see the likes of Valeri Vili or Sarah Ulmer bare breasted on a motorbike, (if that doesn’t work for you, think of your sister or mother)
That is because we respect these women as people.
I don’t care if you want to read your girlie magazines, or watch your porno movies, but do it in the privacy of your own home, not on the publicly funded sidewalks of our cities.
Vote:August 19th, 2008 at 4:50 pm
Lee, very well put.
Vote:On a more serious note this is the second time the Auckland City Council has spent time, effort and ratepayers cash ($25-000 – $30,000 at least) on trying to legislate “moral behaviour” through bylaws. In each case, the by-law limiting the locations of brothels and in the instant case the ACC and it’s advisors have failed to achieve their stated intentions, making them a laughing stock.
Not only that but the fact of the failed injunction has already made headlines in australia, and will no doubt do so in the UK particularly in some of the more populist papers.
And people wonder why we think local body politicians are dorks!
August 19th, 2008 at 4:52 pm
He won? A question of perspective. This only demonstrates that our country has absolutely no moral standards anymore. Some victory. Sickening.
Vote:August 19th, 2008 at 4:55 pm
“only the sickest of perverts would want to see the likes of Valeri Vili or Sarah Ulmer bare breasted on a motorbike”
Yeah, Right.
Vote:August 19th, 2008 at 4:57 pm
# Hoolian (165) +0 Says:
August 19th, 2008 at 4:20 pm
I think if you’ve got standards – to hell with anyone else. So Cathey Casey was standing up for family morality – she is a councillor of the Auckland City Council. It is her role to stand up and represent the views of the people. There are a great deal of people in Auckland who oppose the Boobs on Bikes (for obvious reasons). Just because a small proportion of people here agree with Steve Crow (who is a sad excuse for a human being) doesn’t make the motivation behind Ms Casey’s stand any less valid.
——————————–
Ms Caseys stand is less valid because it seeks to remove the rights of individuals to satisfy the subjective opinions of herself and others.
———-
# Hoolian: That argument is not only lazy, it’s deplorably weak. If we accept there are socially acceptable (and socially unacceptable) values in this country then people have a right to protest about them. Just because some people on this blog doesn’t think it’s a big deal, then that doesn’t make it universally stupid to protest.
————————–
What is universally stupid when people like you wish to use legislation or regulation to force your morality upon others when there is no possibility of it happening.
——————
# Hoolian: Opinions do differ from liberal thought. I’ve said it once, I’ll say it again – liberals don’t understand values because they lack them. The definition of a classic liberal should be broadened to include “vacuum of moral standards”.*
Ohh, what’s the matter? cant you handle people having a different view on life? Moreover, what are you going to do about it? chuck every one you disagree with in prison , burn all of us heretics at the stake? The days when the state could arrogantly dictate subjective morality are rapidly drawing to a close, and the only moral vacuum resides in people like you who would force your views on others.
Vote:August 19th, 2008 at 5:01 pm
I think a decent majority of men, given the choice between the plastic fantastics topless on a motorbike, or Valeri Vili/Sarah Ulmer topless on the same motorbike….
It isn’t about respect. Men can compartmentalise. We can listen to what you are saying whilst we wonder what you would look like topless.
No, that didn’t come out quite right. What I mean is that whether we think you are a nice person, and hold intelligent conversations with you, has nothing to do with whether we’d be interested in seeing your breasts. If you’re worth holding a conversation with, we’ll do that. Separately, if your breasts are worth seeing (and most of them are) we’ll be interested in that too. The only slight divergence here is that we’ll sometimes attempt to hold an intelligent conversation with you, despite the fact that you clearly cannot, purely in the hope of seeing your breasts.
Vote:August 19th, 2008 at 5:07 pm
I’m with democracymum insofar as I agree having Topless women on Harleys is crass and tasteless and a stereotype.
They should be using Triumphs (real class) Ducatis (real flair) or Suzukis (real performance)…
Vote:August 19th, 2008 at 5:30 pm
Regardless of your moral stance, this parade should not go ahead as a matter of consideration for others. Allow me to explain.
Anti-smoking laws are simply making a law of a common courtesy, e.g. a considerate smoker would not smoke in a picture theatre and impose his smoke upon those people who find the smoke to be noxious. That’s consideration of others.
Likewise, consideration for others would indicate that nudity should not be imposed those who find it noxious, and there is clearly a significant portion of the population who find it noxious. I consider nudity to be imposed upon a population when that nudity is displayed where the population has a right of free passage, or when that nudity is clearly visible from such a place.
http://www.kiwipolemicist.wordpress.com
Vote:August 19th, 2008 at 5:31 pm
democracymum,
I don’t care if you want to read your girlie magazines, or watch your porno movies, but do it in the privacy of your own home, not on the publicly funded sidewalks of our cities.
Summed up my sentiments nicely. Thanks.
Vote:August 19th, 2008 at 5:35 pm
I have more of an issue with that “She” magazine Triathlon that blocks all of Tamaki Drive for a whole morning, so that a whole lot of ***fully clothed*** women can have a jolly old running race in celebration of – their womanhood, or something – meanwhile making it damn near impossible for anyone else to get anywhere near that part of town for most of the day.
Vote:August 19th, 2008 at 5:50 pm
democracymum
Relax, I’m actually totally in agreement with you. I like motorbikes, I have one of my own. I like tits as well but not having any of my own I’m always ready to catch a glimpse of any that are being shown off. However I think the whole ‘boobs on bikes’ thing is just a joke. Do people really line the streets to see the fleeting glimpse of a few breasts?
Naked bodies are not always attractive, but they are almost always interesting. In the case of Sarah Ulmer… well you are talking to somebody here who once tried to steal a life size cardboard cut-out of her from a MacDonalds… Brrrr… her naked on a nice full carbon bicycle… now that would be something worth seeing!
Vote:August 19th, 2008 at 5:53 pm
I have a right not to see this in a public place – and being told to shut my eyes is simply infantile. Steve Crow and friends can take their perverted view of how the world should be back to their holes where it belongs. Freedom of expression does not mean go out of your way to offend people.
Stuart Mackey says:
“…Ms Caseys stand is less valid because it seeks to remove the rights of individuals to satisfy the subjective opinions of herself and others…”
Mr Crow’s stand is less valid because it seeks to remove the rights of individuals to satisfy his subjective opinions.
“…What is universally stupid when people like you wish to use legislation or regulation to force your morality upon others when there is no possibility of it happening…”
What is universally stupid is when people like Steve Crow wish to unilaterally force their morality upon others when there is no possibility of it happening.
“…Ohh, what’s the matter? cant you handle people having a different view on life? Moreover, what are you going to do about it? chuck every one you disagree with in prison , burn all of us heretics at the stake? The days when the state could arrogantly dictate subjective morality are rapidly drawing to a close, and the only moral vacuum resides in people like you who would force your views on others…”
Ohh, what’s the matter? cant you handle people having a different view on life? Moreover, what are you going to do about it? chuck every one you disagree with in prison , burn all of us with good morals at the stake? The days when liberals could arrogantly dictate subjective morality are rapidly drawing to a close, and the only moral vacuum resides in people like you who would force your views on others.
Vote:August 19th, 2008 at 6:22 pm
goodgod
I feel the church is trying to force it’s view of morality onto me, are they in a moral vacuum? Shall I burn my bible now?
Vote:August 19th, 2008 at 6:29 pm
BRING ON THE PC NIPPLE WARMERS, but not in dorkland
Vote:August 19th, 2008 at 6:45 pm
Do bags of silicone encased, nay, enrobed in tattoos, actually jiggle, joggle or just lie about inertly? What happens when the Hogs rev up? If they do in fact jiggle at this point, is it fair to blame the hag or the Hog? Dammnation. I am doomed to lose much sleep pondering this issue.
Vote:August 19th, 2008 at 7:31 pm
“I have a right not to see this in a public place – and being told to shut my eyes is simply infantile. ”
That’s the funny thing about public places – they’re public. Other people own them too. In fact, all 400,000 of us here in Auckland City.
There are 8759 hours in the year in which you can walk down Queen Street in the knowledge that you are probably not going to see bare breasts (the horror!). Even if you only have 10,000 residents watch the parade, their views of what should happen there should be taken into account as well. By my calculation, in fact, that’s 218 hours of boobage you owe us.
P
Vote:August 19th, 2008 at 7:40 pm
MR Farrar you run a great blogg
great stress relief opps ps luv TITS
Vote:August 19th, 2008 at 8:11 pm
HARLEYS TOMORROW , ITS THE END OF TIME TOMORROW aucklands doomed, earthquakes and volcanic eruptions and silicon tits.
Vote:August 20th, 2008 at 8:29 am
Your rights stop where someone elses start.
The problem is that here in NZ we seem to think that rights are unlimited by anything at all unless its offending a selcted minority who are the cause de jour.
Vote:August 20th, 2008 at 8:44 am
Liberals told us all that what happened in their own bedrooms was no one’s business but theirs. Now they tell us what they do on public streets is totally up to them too. It’s gone from private to public. The initial sense that liberal views were just plain immoral is proven to be true. They didn’t want the public in their bedrooms, but now they want their bedrooms in public. Back to your holes, liberals! No amount of squealing about “victorian this and that” is going to cover up your hypocrisy, lack of respect for women, immorality and dismissal of common social standards.
Vote:August 20th, 2008 at 8:50 am
It’s a public place and forcing people to observe advertising of pornographic exhibitions, when they have no wish to do so,is wrong.
Good on the council for standing up for public decency. It is not stupid to try and do the right thing.
And to say ‘just ignore it’ is also wrong. It is a parade down Queen St- it is a little hard to ignore!
Unfortunately this all leads to a lack of respect for people and for reasonable standards of common decency.
Vote:August 20th, 2008 at 9:31 am
It’s disingenuous of religious conservatives to claim that liberalism’s rejection of their Christian “family” values represents a “vacuum of moral standards”. Religion does not have a monopoly on morality. Either debate honestly or read more widely.
Vote:August 20th, 2008 at 10:24 am
For those who claim they have a right not to see certain things in a public place?
Does that mean I have a right not to see religious bullshit in a public place as well? That offends me.
Or are your rights not to be offended by a womans body more valid than my rights not to be offended by a group that gets favorable tax status, has continiously molested children over the years, treats women as second class citizens, has tortured those whom they deemed to be inferious, practised censorship on things they disagreed with and waged wars with other cultures and whose leader was in the FUCKING HITLER YOUTH.
But somehow a ****ing nipple is deemed offensive.
Prudes.
Vote:August 20th, 2008 at 11:06 am
Indeed MikeE that is the way the courts seem to be ruling. Pornographic advertising is OK but religious expression is not. Boobs- yes, the cross- no.
So much for liberal ‘tolerance’.
Vote:August 20th, 2008 at 11:44 am
Some tits are always offensive Mike.
I think we call them ‘politicians”.
Vote:August 20th, 2008 at 12:09 pm
Scott, where have teh courts ruled againts relgious expression?
Vote:August 20th, 2008 at 12:12 pm
Helen and her cronies sure as hell have a fun time kicking the crap of Christian “chinless scarf wearers” on a regular basis Mike.
Or are you watching a different parliament?
Vote:August 20th, 2008 at 1:14 pm
Yes, but the courts haven’t ruled against religous expression.
Legislators have ruled against general freedom of expression with the EFA, but there isn’t anything specific to religion in terms of what has been passed. Even if the Govt doesn’t like the EB…
Vote:August 20th, 2008 at 1:50 pm
Right so the EFB WASN’T specifically written with the intention of shuttung down EB participation in the political process?
Thanks for clearing that up Mike.
Except…
Vote: