The latest victim of the Electoral Finance Act
One of the nasty clauses of the Electoral Finance Act is it requires home or residential addresses to be used in all authorisatiion statements. There may be some merit in this for material put out by individuals, but for parties and organisations their registered office is all that should be needed – as was the case in the past.
Over the weekend four women stuck 1,000 (plastic( knives into the Bob McCoskrie’s lawn. They also placed an (ironically) anonymous note on his front door.
This is thuggish intimidatory behaviour. I have condemned mens rights groups for their antics outside the homes of Judges and lawyers, and this is even worse. It is clearly designed to intimidate.
It is possible the people responsible could have found Bob’s address even if he was not forced to have it on election material for Family First. But that is not the point – there is a difference between being in the White Pages and having to have your home address plastered on pamphlets, websites and billboards. I know of several women who have refused to be financial agents because they don’t want their home address published so widely.
Just another reason to vote for parties that will repeal the Electoral Finance Act.
October 8th, 2008 at 11:22 am
FFS, it is the kind of people who OPPOSE Bob McCroskie who deserve a gesture like this, you are right Mr Farrar, that is a sick thing to do, and the people who foisted the EFA address disclosure requirements onto us deserve to have THEIR addresses published like the Libertarianz joked they might do, and to suffer the consequences.
October 8th, 2008 at 11:25 am
Wow, Those knives are all white. Must be New Zealand First’s fault as well. I bet those knives were all funded by secret Owen glenn donations. If it were, then you could get a go in at the EFA and Winston, all in the same post.
You are getting desperate Davey.
October 8th, 2008 at 11:26 am
What a bizarre and pointless act
And what was the message they were trying to convey?
Don’t cut my benefit?
I’m picking they were greens – they look like they were experienced at planting things in rows.
And the apology issued this morning was even stranger.
Definitely not mensa candidates.
Did they have a resource consent for this?
Too much pot smoking and too much time on their hands if you ask me.
October 8th, 2008 at 11:30 am
DPF there’s an update to this ( I actually broke this story) but they left another note that was discovered this morning – saying sorry.
[DPF: Ta I didn't check the blogs and took it from an email from Bob. Well done on getting it into media]
October 8th, 2008 at 11:32 am
That demonstration is skanky, and nasty.
They deserve a night of a thousand cuts. It can be arranged if they ask nicely.
Low level, and petty actions!
It will only reinforce sentiment against the evil AXIS.
October 8th, 2008 at 11:32 am
Haha, the Libertarianz didn’t threaten to reveal Helen’s address, they just went ahead and did it!
October 8th, 2008 at 11:33 am
Actually, now i think about it, if they were funded by Owen Glenn (not saying they were, but you know – he could have given the money to a Labour MP in a toilet on the West Coast who then passed it on the Winstons lawyer) then you could also link it back to Helen Clark, thus proving (at least to ian Wishart’s satisfaction) that the blame for this whole episode can be laid squarely at the door of the ninth floor.
October 8th, 2008 at 11:35 am
Glad to see that Toms thinks that this is all a bit of a hoot, can you imagine the faux outrage if somebody did it to dear corrupt leader?
October 8th, 2008 at 11:38 am
“Were Sorry,”???
obviously another product of our excellent State Schooling system
could even be ncea credit worthy
October 8th, 2008 at 11:38 am
Big bruv – if they did, I should imagine the the DPS officers across the road would arrest them.
What i think is a hoot is David Farrar’s desperate attempt to link this to the EFA.
October 8th, 2008 at 11:41 am
It seems sensible to assume that anyone who would go to the hassle of buying 1000 plastic knives, driving out to McKroskies home and spending what must have been ages sticking the knives into his lawn in the dead of night would be able to trouble themselves to search for McKroskies address on the white pages (which takes less than five seconds).
This is creepy and rather weird but I don’t see how it has anything to do with the Electoral Finance Act.
[DPF: They may have seen the address on a website or pamphlet which gave them the idea. Whitepages often lists initials only so it is hard to conclude if you have the right address. As I said I know several women who refused to be financial agents because of the requirement to have their address listed. ]
October 8th, 2008 at 11:41 am
democracymum – the message signoff perhaps meant: “Were sorry…but not any more”
October 8th, 2008 at 11:45 am
The truth will find them out. On the case right now!
October 8th, 2008 at 11:46 am
“given the money to a Labour MP in a toilet on the West Coast ”
Toms, you meant the partner of a Labour MP, surely?
October 8th, 2008 at 11:48 am
ohhhh and it looks like he lives in a lovely leafy suburb… Somewhere on the Shore or in a nice new sub-division in bible central Pakuranga perhaps… One would have thought that a sober and sensible citizen like Mr. McCroskie would have had some sort of home security/sensor light, but clearly he looks to the Lord for the protection of his lawn.
October 8th, 2008 at 11:52 am
Danyl, criminals are opportunists. It doesn’t take much to turn them away, or to encourage them. Under the EFA, an emotional reaction against an advertisement can immediately be linked to the name and address of somebody you can blame. That makes this kind of crime much more likely.
I think you are falling into a “rational thought” approach that isn’t really justified; this is not a rational act.
October 8th, 2008 at 11:57 am
Whether or not this can be linked to the EFA it is certainly an example of sick and gutless behavior.
October 8th, 2008 at 12:00 pm
Danyl, criminals are opportunists. It doesn’t take much to turn them away, or to encourage them. Under the EFA, an emotional reaction against an advertisement can immediately be linked to the name and address of somebody you can blame. That makes this kind of crime much more likely.
That’s just it – the EFA might make a brick through the window (or something similar) more likely. This wasn’t a crime of opportunity – it was sticking one thousand knives into someone’s lawn at 3 AM.
October 8th, 2008 at 12:01 pm
Helen Clark’s address is already in the public domian.
If anyone didn’t know before the last election they would of known by the coverage of the TV channels of her house, particulary her gate.
October 8th, 2008 at 12:03 pm
But if it was so carefully planned, why did they apologise the next day?
October 8th, 2008 at 12:04 pm
Good on Libz for putting Clark’s address on their billboards. She has little to fear from young hooligans herself, as they are indoctrinated through the schooling system to love her policies, but it makes a good statement.
October 8th, 2008 at 12:06 pm
Danyl, although I don’t know about this case, sticking knives in someone’s lawn can be a spur-of-the-moment thing, have you never been flatting?
October 8th, 2008 at 12:06 pm
David
1. Obviously I condemn this act. It is dumb and thugish
2. This act has nothing to do with the EFA. As Danyl points out, and as 08wire pointed out this morning here, it is very easy to get Bob’s home address with the use of the phone book (a draconian invention that you may also want to repeal). Anybody motivated enough to get a team and a thousand knives together is also motivated enough to go to the White Pages website.
Please don’t let your time in the blogmobile with Whale affect the quality of your posts. If your time together affects **his** posts, that would be great for everybody. If he has an effect on your posts, we’re all worse off.
- Rob
[DPF: As I responded to Danyl, the whitepages often only give initials and do not allow you to be 100% certain you have the correct address. I stated in my original post that they may have been able to get it other ways, but the EFA makes it not only easy but also links the address to a political message people may not like. It is that overt link which invites trouble.]
October 8th, 2008 at 12:12 pm
“This is creepy and rather weird but I don’t see how it has anything to do with the Electoral Finance Act.”
It is all about context, dim. Having private home addresses on election advertisements is not only unnecessary, it also makes that person the named target for irrational political rage. Something they are unlikely to have been without the EFA.
I dont think I am being grossly unfair by suspecting that is exactly what the government actually wanted when it wrote and pushed through this legislation. It is all part of their mission to dissuade people from engaging in the political process or expressing their opinion. This is part of what makes the impact of the EFA “chilling”.
And it is a huge stretch to claim that this has NOTHING to do with the EFA. That sort of absolute statement just reeks of cognitive dissonance.
October 8th, 2008 at 12:13 pm
This is another example of the gutless and thuggish behaviour that one has come to expect from the left, what makes it all the more sickening is the tacit support people like Salmond and Toms give to actions such as this.
October 8th, 2008 at 12:24 pm
These acts are typical of left-wing political activism. I agree with democracymum. Too much time on their hands (long term unemployment) & too much pot-smoking.
October 8th, 2008 at 12:26 pm
They have not apologized. Apologizing would mean turning up in person and saying sorry. Leaving a note is just an attempt to cover their butts if they are caught.
Also, while this may or may not be directly related to the EFA it IS indirectly related. The Electoral Commission has said that the EFA is having a chilling effect on free speech and democracy, and this is part of the wider culture of fear and intimidation aimed at social conservatives and evangelical Christians that the Labour party and the Greens have deliberatly created through the EFA and other laws such as the anti-smacking ban. Bob’s socially conservative views are well known.
Welcome to Labour’s “tolerant” society.
October 8th, 2008 at 12:31 pm
David, how despicable and lowlife do people – Toms – have to be before you ban them/demerit them?
October 8th, 2008 at 12:47 pm
It must have taken them a while to stick in a thousand plastic knives. Couldn’t Bob (or one of his good neighbours) have seen them, and told them to get the f*ck off his property?
I agree it is a lot to ask someone to give up their home address, especially when the political arena is known to be frequented by screaming nutters who plant axes in electorate office windows etc…
[DPF: He was not at home that night]
October 8th, 2008 at 12:52 pm
Fans o’ the EFA say we need the authorisation statement cos we need ta know who’s makin’ political speech. Why? A fundamental tenet o’ democracy is the anonymous vote. We don’t need ta announce who we’re votin’ for. Why do we need to declare who we are when makin’ political speech? The Federalist Papers, arguably one o’ the finest examples o’ political speech in history, was conducted entirely anonymously. It didn’t matter who Publius were, what mattered was the merit o’ their argument.
It opens up a world o’ ad hominem; paradise for Labour First types. Roger Kerr might make a brilliant appeal for policy, but Labour First types will latch on ta the fact that he’s Roger Kerr – Evil Capitalist Extraordinaire – an’ ignore the substance o’ his argument. (And it’ll also tell ‘em where he lives.) Let political speech be anonymous an’ they’re forced to engage the actual argument. Then they’re fecked.
October 8th, 2008 at 12:52 pm
A fairly elaborate plan that during the still of night appears to have gone unnoticed. EFA related or not, i think the concern here is the issue of personal safety for self and family and in this situation a matter of what could have happened? Working in advertising i’m aware of individuals place of residence being plastered all over advertising from the internet to print, billboards etc. Individuals who have some kind of political beef already don’t have to look far to connect the dots and find a target for acts such as this. Can’t say i’d be volunteering to slap my personal details up there either!
October 8th, 2008 at 1:27 pm
Toms – Bob Mcoskrie lives in Manurewa: hardly the bible belt of Auckland. Perhaps check your assumptions at the keyboard?
October 8th, 2008 at 1:32 pm
PhilBest clearly admires Mr McCroskie and supports his stance on issues and is appalled. I, on the other hand, see Mr McCroskie as a publicity-hungry zealot who either hasn’t thought through his policies or just doesn’t care about the likely real effects because they sound good. And needless to say, I oppose them. And I’m appalled.
No one deserves to be placed at risk of intimidation or worse because of a piece of legislation designed to curtail their right to hold and express an opinion. It’s hardly a new principle – Voltaire expressed it better a long time ago.
So why is that those who drafted and passed, and those vociferous in their support for, this ugly attack on free speech continue to deny the reality its effects? It leads one to the inevitable choice of stupidity or corruption.
October 8th, 2008 at 1:50 pm
In tom’s worldview it is clearly a case of law abiding Christians=bad, gangs who rape and pillage=good.
Very, very scary.
October 8th, 2008 at 1:52 pm
Rex,
I can understand why someone might disagree with Bob’s views (which a fast growing number of NZ’ers also hold), but your claiming that he holds these views dishonestly and only wants publicity.
Do you have actual evidence for this claim?
October 8th, 2008 at 1:57 pm
“One consistent law for all” = “I love criminal gangs”. Nice work Lee; well spotted!
October 8th, 2008 at 2:08 pm
From FJORDMAN: “Totalitarian Sweden”
“…..According to the news website The Local, members of the only significant (but still small) party in Sweden critical of mass immigration live under constant threat of violence. Sweden is witnessing the greatest explosion of street violence in its history, and a woman is raped every two hours. The national newspaper Aftonbladet links the massive increase in rapes to the warm weather. The state-sponsored organization Expo, which lists a dozen employees at its website and receives backing from the media and the major parties, has been campaigning against the Sweden Democrats for years. Expo’s Daniel Poohl states that it’s “not undemocratic” to deny the SD access to political influence. The writer Bruce Bawer says that “Sweden Democrats have been the targets of events that recall China’s Cultural Revolution. Staged ‘people’s protests’ by members of the ‘youth divisions’ of other parties have led to the firing of Sweden Democrats from their jobs. A few weeks ago, a junior diplomat was dismissed when it became known that he was a member of the party and had criticized his country’s immigration policy. On several occasions, thugs loyal to the ruling parties have broken up Sweden Democratic meetings and beaten up party leaders.”
Leaders of the far-right Sweden Democrats live under constant threat of violence, according to new report from the Swedish security service Säpo.
Säpo reports that it receives an average of 4.5 reports per month of cases of threats made to Sweden’s district and county councillors.
The threats are systematic, often involve violence, and come from autonomous groups across Sweden. Media exposure and engagement in controversial issues often increase the incidence of threats, Säpo reports.
“This is a democratic problem as it happens that politicians leave their posts as a result of having received threats,” said Säpo analyst Johan Olsson to news agency TT.
Threats are most commonly made via email, letters and on the telephone and typically come from disgruntled citizens….
“…….. Antifascistisk Aktion, a group that supposedly fights against “racists,” openly brag about numerous physical attacks against persons with their full name and address published on their website. Only a week after this group harassed a Swedish judge and vandalized his house, members demonstrated alongside the Swedish police, the Swedish government and the Swedish media establishment during Pride Week, Stockholm’s annual gay celebration, in August 2007. At the very end of the Pride Parade marched a group of black-clothed and masked representatives of AFA. Adjacent to them marched a number of policemen, including members of the Swedish Gay Police organization.
[…]
According to Politikerbloggen, AFA have produced a manual about how to use violence in order to paralyze and hurt their opponents, and they encourage their members to study it closely.
A judge who hears migration appeals had his house vandalized by left-wing extremists. Threats were sprayed on the walls, red paint was poured over the steps and an axe was left outside his home.
The group Antifascistisk Action (AFA) writes on its homepage that the attack was motivated by the situation of Iraqi asylum seekers.
AFA openly brag about numerous attacks against persons who get their full name and address published on their website. According to them, this is done in order to fight against capitalist exploitation and for a global, classless society. Their logic goes something like this: If you protest against Muslim immigration, you suffer from Islamophobia, which is almost the same as xenophobia, which is almost the same as racism. And racists are almost Fascists and Nazis, as we all know, and they shouldn’t be allowed to voice their opinions in public. Hence, if you protest against being assaulted or raped by Muslims, you are evil and need to be silenced. If a native Swede is really lucky, he or she will thus first get mugged or battered by Muslims, and then beaten up a second time by his own extreme Leftists for objecting to being beaten the first time. The state does next to nothing to prevent either.”
October 8th, 2008 at 2:11 pm
The context of the note alongside the knives makes it clear that it was not a random or white-pages thing. Those stating the latter forget that the original note contained the motivation and intent.
October 8th, 2008 at 2:37 pm
Well think of the positive – the soil will be well aerated. Grass should grow well this season
Mind u .. forks would have been better for that …
October 8th, 2008 at 2:37 pm
The sisterhood gets nasty!
October 8th, 2008 at 3:48 pm
“But that is not the point”
the point is, if you are an extremist who condemns people outright for who they are, shit is going to come back and haunt you irrespective of EFA.
“Grass should grow well this season” the aerated soil and the manure coming out of his mouth most days…
October 8th, 2008 at 3:53 pm
Lee: I wouldn’t go so far as to say “dishonestly”, certainly no more so than any politician espouses their views hoping to gain votes when perhaps they don’t believe them.
It’s all aimed at grabbing a headline, as is so much of the gibberish that issues from the mouths of politicians of all types. Where it becomes worrying is when it touches on issues such as the justice system, where ill-thought-out policies have the potential to do a great deal of damage.
I’m certainly not saying he really believes things that are diametrically opposed to his public statements. Instead I’m pointing out that politicians will often express a more extreme version of their real views in order to attract attention. In his case, I hope that’s true because there are many of his views I find unpalatable.
I’m talking about stuff like his views on sentencing (which I’m reluctant to debate here because they’re off topic but I’ve made my views known on other threads) right through to the fact that he can condemn “Californication” and then admit he’s never bothered watching it. No worse than many politicians, sure, and certainly not nearly as bad as, say, cynically offering tax cuts having vehemently opposed them.
But it seems that – since the rest of my comment condemns the fools who perpetrated this act and the greater fools who passed the legislation making it easier for them to do so – the negative karma my earlier comment is attracting indicates how committed some of the people are here to freedom of speech when it concerns a dissenting opinion.
October 8th, 2008 at 4:10 pm
Rex,
I think the flaw in your reasoning is your personal definition of “extreme”.
In evangelical and other conservative Christian circles his views are fairly standard, even somewhat moderate, which is why I think its safe to assume that he says exactly what he believes.
I’m not attacking you for what you said, just curious.
October 8th, 2008 at 4:24 pm
Paul,
It seems to me that your condoning attacks on people and/or their property based on what you personally consider “extreme”. So basically you don’t believe in the rule of law, and you believe that people who disagree with social liberalism bring violence on themselves.
Now that really is extreme.
There is no possible justification for that and none whatsoever for this vile act.
Disagreeing with a particular behavior does not automatically mean “condemning” the person engaging in said behavior, though liberals have tried the two together in order to shut down free speech and debate and condemn anyone who does not sight up to social liberalism.
October 8th, 2008 at 4:34 pm
Paul thinks this kind of gutless intimidation is standard procedure for the social liberalism field engineers.Make sure the dumbo keystones look for witch droppings in the grass.
October 8th, 2008 at 4:53 pm
Rex Widerstrom, I haven’t noticed you in recent threads debating the treatment of the crime issue. I said THIS to the Greenie “Ari”; what do you think?
We are in denial about the root causes of crime, what causes someone to be destined for a recidivist criminal career by the time they are 3 years old. The lack of a real caring mother is the worst thing and the lack of a real caring father is the second worst thing.
Most unsolved crime is committed not by unknown criminals, but by known ones who have not been connected to all the crimes they have committed. This is why crime drops spectacularly when criminals are locked up sooner in their careers and for longer. It is a barefaced lie to say otherwise. It is true that tougher sentencing does not DETER the recidivist, the drop in crime is simply because people locked up in jail can no longer commit crime.
The result of failing to confront the irresponsible parenting problem, is simply that we will have a crime problem, that we will need to address either by locking up large numbers of people, as the USA has done, or by a police state, with all decent citizens suffering curtailments of their freedom for the sake of a criminal minority that the establishment refuses to deal with directly (Sweden and the UK are heading down this path). The third option is simply to deny the existence of a problem and let the populace live in terror.
Rehabilitation has been tried and tried and tried, and does not work. Faith based rehabilitation has the best rate of success, and even that is low, and ironically faith based rehabilitation is the last thing that the secular pro-rehabilitation crowd have in mind. The problem we have today, is with an “unrehabilitatable” criminal class, a legacy of breakdown in moral values. Social commentators fall into 4 categories. The traditionalist, Charles Murray type has been saying “we told you so” all along. The secular philosopher, Francis Fukuyama type, are coming to inevitable conclusions through sheer intellectual honesty and reason, but cannot bring themselves to make any reference to abstract truth. The third, neo-Marxist Herbert Marcuse type, are damn well out to bring about the collapse of western society and conceal this true agenda in plausible utopian gobbledegook. The fourth type are the young and ignorant who have been stuffed full of Marcuse and Derrida and Foucault at Uni and haven’t yet seen the light. These people eventually either see the light or actively commit to the dark side, they cannot stay in the “ignorant dupe” category forever, as their observations will contradict everything they have been taught. Our institutions are stacked with types 3 and 4, the only people who actually bring truth to the discussion table are the independent charitable operators like Sensible Sentencing.
I recommend:
Francis Fukuyama: “The Great Disruption”
Theodore Dalrymple: “Policeman In Wonderland”
“Fjordman”: “The Greatest Betrayal In History”
C.S. Lewis: “The Humanitarian Theory of Punishment”
Charles Murray: “The Coming of Custodial Democracy” AND “The Underclass Revisited”
Rex, if you are genuinely interested in this topic and you have not read all or some of the above articles, PLEASE do so. Others have commented favourably after reading them.
October 8th, 2008 at 4:57 pm
REX, you will find links to all those articles back on THIS thread:
http://www.kiwiblog.co.nz/2008/10/tauranga_likes_john.html#comments
(Scroll down page about halfway)
October 8th, 2008 at 5:23 pm
Lee: Thanks, no I’m not feeling attacked by you at all. It’s a good debate. You make a good point. I don’t know many evangelical Christians but upon reflection I suppose it could be said that McCroskie’s views accord with theirs… though none are quite so lacking charity toward those who find themselves in the justice system (at least not to my face, as they know it’s a sensitive issue).
If I’m wrong in assuming that he’s not above a bit of hyperbole to attract media, then I’m sorry if I misjudged him. Ironically, if he is serious in suggesting that he – or someone – should have the right to control what I and other adults choose to watch on TV or at the movies or online (providing no crime has been committed in the making of such work) or read in a book or magazine, then I oppose his views more stronglythan if they were simply stated for effect.
The irony is, I guess, that in wanting to ban things Mr McCroskie sets himself up as an opponent of the very right I’m defending that he should have – the right to say, hear, read and think anything he pleases.
October 8th, 2008 at 5:43 pm
Would it be worth pointing out to toms et. al., that politicians have the option of having their names on ‘blind’ rolls that are not available to the public and unlisted phone numbers (which are… well, not listed in the White Pages). Financial agents don’t have that option, and even vocal proponents of the EFA I know don’t actually think requiring financial agents to publish their home addresses on election material actually does a bloody thing to ensure ‘transparency’ and ‘accountability’.
And, Rob, after seeing some of the sick fuckers who’ve vandalised the hoardings of female candidates (of all parties) with misogynistic and sexual graffiti, I’m hardly surprised that DPF knows women who aren’t keen to give these freaks directions to their homes.
Like Rex, I’ve little time for McCroskie’s views, but will defend his right to express them. And he and his family have the same right to privacy and their property rights being respected as anyone else. Either this kind of shit is totally unacceptable for everyone, or it’s all on. I know which option I prefer.
October 8th, 2008 at 5:56 pm
I don’t think we are anywhere near a real crisis yet, but political violence of any sort, even if it is just against property, is never a good sign for the health of a democracy.
October 8th, 2008 at 6:24 pm
PhilBest: Thanks for that. I’d made a mental note to read all that information when I had time (ironically, I’ve been heavily involved in the defence of someone in teh Supreme Court for several weeks) and will do so as soon as I can.
Actually DPF gave a pretty apt summation of part of my argument in the very thread to which you allude, namely:
I agree completely, and support harsher sentencing for the latter group. The problem with across-the-board harsher penalties for everyone is that the capacity of the former group to turn their lives around is damaged and sometimes destroyed.
The answer is, I believe, more complex than simply assuming everyone found guilty to be irredeemable (or close enough to it) but to improve our capacity to differentiate between those who would benefit from rehabilitation and those who will simply abuse it as an opportunity to recommence their offending earlier.
I agree we’re not doing a good job of that at present as the recidivism rates – and especially those of persons on bail or parole – demonstrate. But we have to find more intelligent solutions that ever- lengthening periods of incarceration for those who genuinely do want a different life – if not for them, then for their families. Because I agree with you that an absent mother or father, or both, is a likely precursor to a life of offending for a child. And if there’s a mother or father in a jail someplace who’s genuinely remorseful and would benefit from release and rehabilitation, I don’t want to deny that opportunity to them or to their child.
October 8th, 2008 at 6:25 pm
Just for the record I’m opposed to state censorship myself, but I have no problem with citizens protesting or applying consumer pressure on business or media.
October 8th, 2008 at 6:53 pm
Lee: Pressure media to do what? Stop tying them to their lounge chairs and taping their eyelids open to make them watch?
Sorry, I’m being facetious but I’ve always found the Patricia Bartletts of this world to be slightly risible.
They nobly plough through all this “filth” and then protest that it will cause the rest of us to become uncontrollable sex fiends (a symptom that somehow they, being pure of heart, manage to studiously avoid) or they don’t watch it, comment from a position of ignorance, and would have the rest of us kept in similar ignorance.
If a supermarket was selling TV dinners that tasted like crap, would they stand outside and demand that the offending items be taken off the shelves? No, they’d assume the market would prevail and no one would eat the stuff (unless they’re nuttier than I thought. Or members of the Green Party and it was GE crap
). Just as I’m capable of chossing what I have for dinner, I’m also capable of choosing what I watch while eating it. And if I choose to consume crap, so be it.
October 8th, 2008 at 7:51 pm
Why you got negative karma for that I have no idea Rex. But you are spot on. Most of us are reasonable adults capable of making decisions for ourselves. I can understand people being concerned over their children, but their failures to use prophylactic devices does not need to cut into what other people can watch on television.
Of course in a healthy society we’d have parental controls available on the devices used to access various channels, we’d schedule the more adult programs outside of normal children bedtimes, etc. Those are smart things to do. But they do not cut into other people’s access.
This whole nanny state, interventionist bullshit is just that – bullshit. Time the government let us get on with being adults, rather than trying to legislate that away from us. I know I’m capable of making intelligent decisions. It’s the same deal with politics and this cruddy EFA.
Apart from the obvious electoral advantage Labour, the Greens and their cohorts tried to legislate for themselves this type of thing that DPF highlights is very, very scary. It’s an invasion of somebody’s private life which has no point. It only exposes them to the nutbars and freaks out there. More attempts from Labour and the Greens to shut down people in an election year, to only have government funded political propaganda out in the mailboxes and to the public view.
October 8th, 2008 at 8:08 pm
This was laid at the feet of mens rights groups, yet women did it.
confusing, but thats not all. There’s a certain mens rights indivudual not representing on this thread. Morfe confusion.
Most of the Rpublicans are mens rights advocates.
this does their curious image and cause no good at all.
October 8th, 2008 at 8:18 pm
Is it riki,, or hinamanu,,,?
October 8th, 2008 at 8:27 pm
Sorry bout that D4J.
Didn’t see your lil post stuck in the middle there
Honest mistake
October 9th, 2008 at 12:46 am
Rex,
The problem with one person choosing to live in a toilet is that sooner or later the toilet overflows and we are all forced to. This is clearly the case with Western civilization.
I believe in personal choice, and I don’t think the state should impose censorship. I oppose the nanny state because its a two edged sword that can just as easily work against morality and genuine moral freedom (as the HRA does).
But I also believe that in a free society people are allowed to peacefully advocate their views and work for what they see as the betterment of society. Consumer activism is a necessary part of civil society. If over time those advocating a certain moral view become the majority then naturally what media outlets are prepared to show is going to change as those outlets reflect the wider society, and sometimes that may involves using consumer pressure.
I don’t buy your arguments regarding TV. Most moral conservatives don’t sit around watching morally degenerate programs, but the idea that this means that cannot have an informed opinion is absurd.
I don’t need to watch a snuff film to know that its wrong. And If I have a general idea of what is on a particular program I don’t need to see it to form an opinion.
October 9th, 2008 at 3:42 am
Hels should hang her head in shame. The EFA was a really bad idea that Labour will be justly punished for in the polls on 8 November.
Bye bye Hels.
October 9th, 2008 at 8:11 am
Lee:
True to a degree, but I can also think of a few times when I thought I knew what something was about and turned out to be pleasantly wrong about it. It goes both ways.
October 9th, 2008 at 12:25 pm
Pascal,
I agree with you. My point was more that Rex was offering up two extremes as though they were the only possible options, and claiming that general moral principles cannot be generally applied. At the same time morals campaigners have the duty to be at reasonably informed.
Its a balancing act, and they are not always going to get it right.
Personally, while I would have not watched Californication, it was at least on at a late hour. I have way more concern about the crap that kids can see every evening on Slutland Street.
October 9th, 2008 at 1:25 pm
Thank you for that Rex, let me elaborate a bit further. I and the commentators I refer to, actually find the course we recommend, distressing in the extreme. In a way, it is NOT the “fault” of many of those criminals that their only prospect is a life behind bars, not in the sense that it would be MY fault or your fault if we had to end up behind bars in spite of the fortune of a good upbringing. But we cannot use even the most valid reasons for which somebody might be completely uncontrollable and unrehabilitable, as a reason to NOT incarcerate them; simply because innocent society is entitled to protection from them.
Who do YOU think finds the necessity of incarceration of such people most distressing, the “liberal” who refuses to acknowledge the true underlying problem, for which their ideology is responsible, and refuses even to acknowledge the fundamental requirement to protect society; or the “conservative” who warned us and warned us and warned us all along?
October 9th, 2008 at 1:41 pm
The biggest mistake “we” make as a society, is letting the destructive ideology spread and take root in the first place. People like Foucault and Marcuse should have been in jail, not heading departments at universities.
Social experiments cannot simply be called off, by the time the effects can be measured it is always too late, even if the meaning of the measurements could be agreed apon, and entrenchment of the ideologies responsible in the meantime will make even this agreement impossible, in fact may even result in the corruption of the measurements themselves. And I am afraid that non-Socialists who set out to ingratiate themselves with the enemy and show how they can be just as “tolerant”, bear the next most responsibility. Understand how risky it is for me to say what I am now going to say: the glorification of homosexuality is merely a logical latter advancement of the 1960′s sexual revolutionary separation of sexual “fulfillment” from the age-old reproductive function, and the devaluation of married-couple child-rearing; it is just one step closer to the “Brave New World”. Have you read that book? Interestingly, the radical feminist and the sexual libertarian find it an exhilarating read, a prophetic expression of their utopia.
October 9th, 2008 at 1:49 pm
Rex
I would recommend next time your going to be in Auckland that you ring Bob mcKoskie up (in advance) and arrange a lunch with him.
Then you’ll be able to be accurate in your writing about him. ( from your perspective of course).
i’m not on the same page as him in everything, but he is all heart.
and it is in the right place, unlike our dear nanny state people.
I would make the observation that as the general level of turd in the toilet (to borrow someone else’s term) rises, so does the risk of overflow and all of us getting our shoes dirty.
Not to mention the back of our trousers as they rest on the floor at our ankles!!
I’m not going to stick my head down the Loo by saying it doesn’t matter what we all do in our own time or on our own TV.
It does, everything is incremental.
even turds.