Will VUWSA President be flag burning tomorrow?
April 24th, 2009 at 4:56 pm by David FarrarI am reliably informed the VUWSA Executive has decided that ANZAC Day glorifies war so they won’t be laying a wreath tomorrow. This is the body every student at Vic Uni is forced to join. I bet you 95% of students would disagree with them.
Even worse I am told it is likely the VUWSA President will be burning a flag during the dawn service tomorrow.
Someone remind me again why National is continuing to force students to fund the muppets?
UPDATE: Sources tell me that due to her position, it is very unlikely the VUWSA President herself will burn any flag, but some of her comrades may do so. We’ll find out.
Tags: ANZAC Day, VUWSA
April 24th, 2009 at 5:01 pm
Oh really?, given that, I would think it is likely that the prick will receive a punch in the face.
I am not a violent man but I honestly think I would be hard pushed not to “Vietch” the prick if it was done in my presence.
Who is the president DPF?
[DPF: He is a she. I'm not using her name yet in case she does not do it, as Google does record forever.]
Vote:April 24th, 2009 at 5:14 pm
I think I will now have to get up early and get to the Wellington Dawn Service just so I can smack this dumbfuck.
Vote:Like big bruv, I am not normally a violent person but there must be limits on what one is prepared to put up with. That sort of behaviour is beyond the pale.
April 24th, 2009 at 5:14 pm
Well that would be incredibly stupid of him(her) to burn a flag on Anzac day, no doubt he(she) will be given a real life demonstration of actions and consequences by the citizens of this land.
Vote:April 24th, 2009 at 5:14 pm
Day of solemn commemeration in rememberence for thousands of war dead is a “glorification” of war? Admission standards for Victoria aren’t very high are they.
Vote:April 24th, 2009 at 5:26 pm
It’s nothing to do with entry standards. It’s to do with the cult of student leadership.
Only the politically-motivated zealots believe that with the tiny fraction of students who vote for them, they truly represent the student body.
Vote:April 24th, 2009 at 5:28 pm
Given the Vic alumni who have perished fighting for their country, perhaps some respect from their Student Union might be in order?
Vote:April 24th, 2009 at 5:31 pm
I might remind said president that it is because of those soldiers that fought and died that she can decide to burn a flag tomorrow.
Vote:April 24th, 2009 at 5:31 pm
http://www.vuwsa.org.nz/about/the-executive
Vote:April 24th, 2009 at 5:32 pm
I thought the standard peace-activist/ANZAC-glorifies-war etc. thing to do was to lay a wreath in memory of the victims of rape in war-time?
EDIT: hey, I can edit! Thanks DPF.
Vote:April 24th, 2009 at 5:35 pm
… is a member of the Workers’ Party of New Zealand, and has also been involved in a variety of campaigns and movements, such as the anti-war movement and volunteer organising for Unite Union.
Until taking up the role of VUWSA President, …. was Assistant Lecturer in Gender and Women’s Studies at VUW, where she specialised in the construction of activism, alternative media and politics.
…. is toward the end of a PhD thesis which considers the role of women activists surrounding the women’s suffrage campaign, the 1951 waterfront lockout and the 1981 Springbok tour.
As President in 2009, …. is working toward a sustainable and accountable students’ association, which offers enhanced support to VUWSA clubs and representative groups, stronger representation and participation amongst members, and greater student control of student affairs.
Oh Gawd, another subliminally mindfucked, campus engendered commie.
Vote:April 24th, 2009 at 5:37 pm
Student associations should be opt-out voluntary – not compulsory, and not opt-in voluntary.
Vote:April 24th, 2009 at 5:39 pm
No, I believe the correct reaction is to allow freedom of association in that ‘critic of society’ that universities represent. For the large part, student politicians seek office as a stepping stone into research and advisory units of the Labour Party.
Make student membership- just like regular unions- voluntary.
Vote:April 24th, 2009 at 5:39 pm
cue hysterical chest-beating..
(oh..!.it’s already started..)
where’s muzza..?
and reddy..?
phil(whoar.co.nz)
Vote:April 24th, 2009 at 5:42 pm
Brian> http://www.vuwsa.org.nz/about/the-executive
Is the Activities Officer a woman, or a bloke in drag?
Interesting also that VUWSA has a Queer Officer and a Women’s Rights Officer (Acting). The rest of society recognised equality for gay people and women a long time ago. Is VUW really so far behind the rest of us that these are still issues of concern? I thought universities were supposed to be progressive and modern, rather than the last bastions of red neck attitudes?
Vote:April 24th, 2009 at 5:42 pm
When I was there one could opt out of VUWSA – but you didn’t get your money back, it was donated to somebody else. Plus it was a real hassle so nobody bothered.
Vote:BTW if VUWSA wanted everyone’s student loans to go down they could make membership voluntary – it would save students $3-500 over the course of their degree.
April 24th, 2009 at 5:43 pm
Who bred this wart on the arse of society?
She’s probably a lesbian, so is unlikely to contaminate the gene pool further.
Vote:April 24th, 2009 at 5:45 pm
It’s just to create positions so that more of your raving left-wing pollies can dominate the student union.
That way anybody who believes that freedom of association is a basic human right, can be shat upon with more prolific glee.
Voluntary membership is the answer.
Vote:April 24th, 2009 at 5:48 pm
Politician Uses Day Of Rememberence For Political Grandstanding
Vote:April 24th, 2009 at 5:48 pm
Huh?
No disagreements there.
Vote:April 24th, 2009 at 5:48 pm
Feminazi socialist .
Interestingly, the Wintec gay student union delegate won’t give public statements.
He doesn’t have to cause no one else wants his position.
Personally, I think tolerance is a weapon used to defeat argumnt and discussion.
IE: if you’re not tolerant, you have no right to speak.
I really, really hate political gays.
Vote:April 24th, 2009 at 5:54 pm
In a way I hope she does do it – it will demonstrate, once again, that these people are stuck in the Viet Nam era and totally irrelevant.
Vote:April 24th, 2009 at 5:55 pm
There are certain things you just shouldn’t do, and this is one of them. Protesting is okay, but there’s a time and a place for it, this isn’t it. Does she have no sense at all?
Its times like this I get really angry, and wish we still had the death penalty for crimes of treason (which this should be on such an important day to a great majority of New Zealanders).
I hope for her sake she drinks too much or smokes too much of something tonight so she fails to get up in time for it.
Vote:April 24th, 2009 at 5:56 pm
VUW might be bad, but check out the referenced site to find profiles of the VUWSA office staff. [deleted by DPF]
Vote:April 24th, 2009 at 5:58 pm
Who knows? Somebody might just shoot the bitch.
Vote:April 24th, 2009 at 6:01 pm
“So an Otago University degree qualifies you to issue bus tickets”
The worst are the courses like Political Science, where students seemingly get force fed with relentless left-wing horseshit until they end up believing it. Such students are better off going out and getting a trade.
Vote:April 24th, 2009 at 6:21 pm
Membership should be opt-in voluntary, not opt-out voluntary. Only then will the union be more responsive.
Vote:April 24th, 2009 at 6:27 pm
The problem with that is that massive resources need to be wasted on signing up students who either assume they’re automatically members, or would want to be otherwise. If everyone is by default a member of the student association, and receive instructions on how to opt out within the first few weeks of the semester, all of that money is saved.
Vote:April 24th, 2009 at 6:32 pm
It’s all too sensible though Ryan, there’s not enough to argue about and it could conceivably work… no, that won’t do.
Vote:April 24th, 2009 at 6:36 pm
“Oh Gawd, another subliminally mindfucked, campus engendered commie.”
Actually a traitor. By burning the flag providing comfort to the enemy, and signalling to them that they have a fifth column within NZ if they ever need it.
The time for tolerating these cowards and treasonists whose allegiance is not to NZ but to global communism is far over.
She wants peace, tell her to fuck off to Red China or Nth Korea and seek it there.
Too yellow.
Can only do it in countries where the very soldiers she seeks to insult so viciously died making her safe.
Lowlife scum.
How long do we tolerate these vile subhuman knuckle draggers who abuse freedom in order to destroy freedom?
Vote:April 24th, 2009 at 6:41 pm
Burning a flag is not something I’d do or support, it’s too crude, too unsophisticated and blunt but… it’s not illegal and freedom to protest includes freedom to do stuff that may offend.
Vote:April 24th, 2009 at 6:44 pm
Woman’s Officer. Queer Officer. Environmental Officer. International Officer. Welfare Vice President. Education Officer. etc etc. A real nest of germinating commies liars and control freaks sitting all comfortable in our universities, a place where such vile subhuman totalitarian shit should be fringe not controlling the damn place.
Everyone out there, get a copy of Evan Maloney’s film “Indocrtrinate U.”
Get these stinking communist scum out of our Universities.
Vote:April 24th, 2009 at 6:46 pm
Hmmmmm….while disagreeing with the sentiment of a person who burns a flag in the supposed context of “glorifing war”, to be true to my Libertarian principles I must defend her right to do it…..and if I was there and saw any of you attack this person I would smash you one right back in self defence of a violated other.
The freedom that we enjoy thanks to our fallen soldiers includes the right to be wrong and make wrong choices…as a stunt like this would be. I say let them do their thing and reap the consequences of dislike,social sanction and negative publicity. Initiating violence against them strenghtens their position and weakens yours.
“Burning a flag is not something I’d do or support, it’s too crude, too unsophisticated and blunt but… it’s not illegal and freedom to protest includes freedom to do stuff that may offend.”
Well said Paul.”I disagree with what you say but I defend to the death your right to say it”….anything else is a far graver insult to the memories of what our troops went to fight for….and against.
Vote:April 24th, 2009 at 6:48 pm
“it’s not illegal and freedom to protest includes freedom to do stuff that may offend.”
Oh Mr Willy wanking Williams is back for yet another dose of negative kharma.
You’re claim is a lie. Its a lie because you know it is not true. Universities have speech codes where offensive words and actions are forbidden. (All a communist farce of course).
Using the word ‘faggot’ (for example) is nowhere near as offensive as burning the flag in front of veterans.
Vote:April 24th, 2009 at 6:51 pm
“If everyone is by default a member of the student association, and receive instructions on how to opt out within the first few weeks of the semester”
How about letting people decide whether they want to be a member of an organization rather than making assumptions on their Behalf?
Vote:April 24th, 2009 at 6:52 pm
“Hmmmmm….while disagreeing with the sentiment of a person who burns a flag in the supposed context of “glorifing war”, to be true to my Libertarian principles I must defend her right to do it…..and if I was there and saw any of you attack this person I would smash you one right back in self defence of a violated other.”
Another cowardly treasonist. I hope some woman with a bit of spunk goes down there and knocks this woman’s teeth out. She needs to learn the true meaning of offensive.
Vote:April 24th, 2009 at 6:54 pm
Burning a flag would be worse than Judith Tizard calling someone — of Jewish descent — a “Nazi” at the Auckland ANZAC parade.
Having mentioned the flag-burning idea to others, the VUWSA President would now be under pressure to go through with it, or be thought a coward, and scared of “the Establishment”. Instead of blanks, issue the servicemen with live rounds for the “salute”. And see what happens if she dares to burn it.
Vote:April 24th, 2009 at 6:58 pm
adolf wins most-hysterical-chest-beat award..
redbaiter gets an honourable mention..
phil(whoar.co.nz)
Vote:April 24th, 2009 at 7:02 pm
Cowards and bludgers who use threats of violence to steal from chemist shops have no right to assume themselves important enough to bestow awards. Slime.
Vote:April 24th, 2009 at 7:03 pm
Its not a very nice flag
Vote:If it was a good local design it would be a shame to burn it
Perhaps they could just burn the Union flag bit off the corner
April 24th, 2009 at 7:09 pm
“Hater and Wrecker” comes to mind…
However, although unpopular, I respect the rights she has to do it.
As long as she respects the consequences.
Vote:April 24th, 2009 at 7:09 pm
Oh SHIT…the President is a bloody Shelia!.
Given that I firmly believe there is no justification for thumping a Shelia (even one as deserving as this maggot) I suppose I would have better think of another way of showing my dissatisfaction with her intended actions.
Is spitting on the bitch firm enough or would it be better to collect a huge bag of dog shit and tip that over the silly cows head?
Vote:April 24th, 2009 at 7:11 pm
I’ll take that bet Mr farrar.
Stump up with your poll.
James has the only logical and correct response. The rest of you are typical knee jerks. no fucking wonder so many of your ancestors lie dead in a foreign land fighting the wars of your foreign overlords.
Vote:April 24th, 2009 at 7:11 pm
Wow, that is some seriously pathetic attention seeking. These student associations really are a waste of oxygen, scary thing is, these are the people who will most likely be running the labour party some day.
Vote:Never again must the red tide rise, or we are screw diddly ooood.
April 24th, 2009 at 7:11 pm
Phool
Did we ever clear up the “mystery” re your supposed qualifications?
Or are you Mary Anne Thompson’s brother?
Vote:April 24th, 2009 at 7:11 pm
“Another cowardly treasonist. I hope some woman with a bit of spunk goes down there and knocks this woman’s teeth out. She needs to learn the true meaning of offensive.”
Nice one Red…so now its treason to stand up for freedom and whats right.
“Using the word ‘faggot’ (for example) is nowhere near as offensive as burning the flag in front of veterans.”
No such thing as a right not to be offended Red….no matter how distasteful the offending action may be.
How many old soldiers graves did you shit on today you fair weather fan of freedom? Grow a principled pair.
Vote:April 24th, 2009 at 7:14 pm
“..big bruv (3455) Vote: Add rating 0 Subtract rating 0 Says:
April 24th, 2009 at 7:11 pm
Phool
Did we ever clear up the “mystery” re your supposed qualifications?.”
yes..
i forgot to apply to graduate..
who knew..?
phil(whoar.co.nz
Vote:April 24th, 2009 at 7:17 pm
“Nice one Red…so now its treason to stand up for freedom and whats right.”
What the hell is “right” about burning our flag on Anzac day?
Vote:And how the hell is doing that standing up for “freedom”?
April 24th, 2009 at 7:18 pm
” i forgot to apply ” so phool just gets a WINZ benefit now.
Vote:April 24th, 2009 at 7:19 pm
“Nice one Red…so now its treason to stand up for freedom and whats right.”
What the hell is “right” about burning our flag on Anzac day?
And how the hell is doing that standing up for “freedom”?”
Someone else what to explain the principle of it to “little missed the point riding hood”?
I have to go and take a Red baiter
Vote:April 24th, 2009 at 7:20 pm
BillyBorker – To give you the right to say what you have just said, (as disgusting as it is) is the reason my ancestors lay dead fighting the wars in a foreign land.
Vote:April 24th, 2009 at 7:21 pm
Put it this way:
You wouldn’t be allowed to burn the flag in Imperial Japan or Nazi Germany.
So banning flag-burning would make the country that much more similar to the regimes the Anzacs died fighting.
Vote:April 24th, 2009 at 7:23 pm
I find it interesting that some here are keen to support the right of students to protest, when said student politicians despise and hate ‘freedom of association’.
Frankly- if I was a student I wouldn’t give a fuck what student presidents do- but I would resent being forced to associate with him/her because compulsory student membership mandates this.
Vote:April 24th, 2009 at 7:24 pm
Would there be by any chance a Dr Josef Mengele employed at the Victoria university. Sounds like a girl from Mt Albert case.
Vote:April 24th, 2009 at 7:24 pm
“Nice one Red…so now its treason to stand up for freedom and whats right.”
You fucken idiot. You do not extend unlimited freedom to those whose objective is to take your freedom. Unless you want to lose that freedom.
This woman would have been hanging from a lamp post in an instant during the American War of Independence if she’d been seen burning the rebel flag. And rightly so.
Vote:April 24th, 2009 at 7:27 pm
“You wouldn’t be allowed to burn the flag in Imperial Japan or Nazi Germany.”
What’s “be allowed” mean Ryan?? You think this is just some naughty child? Fuck off with your idealistic crap. Its dumbfucks like you who give these anti-freedom scum the foothold they need to take all of our freedoms.
Vote:April 24th, 2009 at 7:27 pm
I mean it would be outlawed and a punishable offence, Red.
Vote:April 24th, 2009 at 7:27 pm
I couldn’t care less if someone wants to burn a flag. It’s a victimless crime.
But should this occur at a dawn ceremony, well, timing is everything and that is deliberately provocative and deeply offensive.
Vote:April 24th, 2009 at 7:27 pm
university politicians are depraved socialists.
Who knew?
dont you just love the resume:
political studies – check
womens officer – check
union volunteer – check
next job will be labour party research unit, and then, provided she can keep from stealing other people’s liquor, a safe list seat.
what a career!
New Zealand makes me weep sometimes.
Vote:April 24th, 2009 at 7:28 pm
If, for the sake of argument, this woman were a radical Islamic student calling for the beheading of Kiwi infidels, who would have the courage to take her on? I suggest most of us would be anonymously blustering behind barricades and refraining from publishing “cartoons.” Instead, this person is “easy meat” and allows blow-hards to “get stuck-in” without fear of repercussion. Am I wrong?
Vote:April 24th, 2009 at 7:28 pm
and edit is back, yay!
Vote:April 24th, 2009 at 7:28 pm
Jesus..if there is anything I hate more than a commies it is these libertarian wankers, all society has standards and those standards should be defended, yet our libertarian friends want to stand back and let her insult people who died defending this country and our way of life.
There are another 364 days a year that this bitch can burn our flag, if she does it on Anzac Day she deserves what ever she gets (short of a kicking given she is a Shelia)
Vote:April 24th, 2009 at 7:29 pm
“Someone else what to explain the principle of it to “little missed the point riding hood”?”
While that is funny, your karma rating would appear to possibly, maybe, on an outside chance, suggest that “little missed the point riding hood” was not the only one to miss the point.
Vote:Perhaps “Oscar clarify your point the grouch” could comunicate better next time.
April 24th, 2009 at 7:32 pm
I don’t know what to say to that James, i can’t reply in a civil manner other than they have as much right to protest as people have the right to be left in peace.
Vote:April 24th, 2009 at 7:32 pm
the so-called PAW specialise in insulting elderly servicemen and women at the dawn parade. I think they take special pleasure from shitting on people trying to show respect for their dead friends and comrades.
Its always the same with the callow left, having to draw attention to their “anger” about “oppression”
last PAW protest I saw they seemed to think that us being in Timor was some form of international adventurism oppressing the Timorese – how they got that idea god only knows. Maybe we are trying to steal their oil? If so, we are going about it in a damn strange way, or perhaps we are interfering in a legitimate civil war, and perhaps the Timorese should be allowed to slaughter each other in internecine warfare – they are brown after all, wouldnt want to be all neo-con about things.
Vote:April 24th, 2009 at 7:33 pm
“I mean it would be outlawed and a punishable offence, Red.”
Innocent people have shed blood at the hands of communists like this women throughout history Ryan. Nothing wrong with shedding their blood before they shed ours.
Vote:April 24th, 2009 at 7:34 pm
A future Labour leader in the making, Helen would be proud.
Vote:April 24th, 2009 at 7:36 pm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commissar_order
Vote:April 24th, 2009 at 7:37 pm
“BillyBorker – To give you the right to say what you have just said, (as disgusting as it is) is the reason my ancestors lay dead fighting the wars in a foreign land.”
Ching!!! Exactly! Thats the point right there……standing up for individual rights and the freedom to exercise them means standing up for them 100% of the time…even when we hate what some people may do with those rights.
“You fucken idiot. You do not extend unlimited freedom to those whose objective is to take your freedom. Unless you want to lose that freedom.”
No ones said anything about “unlimited freedom”….just bog standard natural individual rights…in this case the rights to liberty and (in the case of the flag) property.They will be expressed through the persons right to free speech and expression.No ones rights are violated by a protest and the burning of a personally owned flag.”
“Its dumbfucks like you who give these anti-freedom scum the foothold they need to take all of our freedoms.”
Look in the mirror and say that noddy….you so don’y get it.
Redbaiter wants to honour our dead by acting like the very totalitarian thugs they went to fight….he is revealed as a flip flopper re freedom….ok for him but no one else…unless Redbaiter oks it.
You have lost any credibility you may have had in your tirades against socialists,facists and control freaks by your expressions here…..hypocrisy,thy name is Redbaiter.
Vote:April 24th, 2009 at 7:43 pm
“You have lost any credibility you may have had in your tirades against socialists,facists and control freaks by your expressions here…..hypocrisy,thy name is Redbaiter.”
James is so internally convoluted by his Libertarian bible he would stand by and watch termites eat his house down.
Why were war criminals, who had not actually harmed anyone themselves, hung after the Nuremberg trials James?
Vote:April 24th, 2009 at 7:44 pm
What this stroppy little brat is planning to do is obsene, she is doing it to deliberately cause offense. This is about the lazyist way to protest anything and shows she lacks respect for even the cause she is supporting.
Vote:People get angry over offensive behavour, if she gets a violent response too bloody bad.
April 24th, 2009 at 7:46 pm
Big Bruv dispalys his ignorance of this issue yet again,….he didn’t get it re Easter and he doesn’t get it here…
“Jesus..if there is anything I hate more than a commies it is these libertarian wankers, all society has standards and those standards should be defended, yet our libertarian friends want to stand back and let her insult people who died defending this country and our way of life.”
…While you want to insult them by acting like the very scum they went to fight dimbulb.Just how do you honour men who fight for freedom by repressing it Bruv…?Please explain.
Its like those countrys who try to ban Nazism by acting like Nazis when anyone expresses an opinion a la David Irving etc…..by doing so they lay the ground work to bring about the very thing they want to prevent…..PC stupidity writ large.
Vote:April 24th, 2009 at 7:47 pm
“James is so internally convoluted by his Libertarian bible he would stand by and watch termites eat his house down.”
Might go and take a dump on his front lawn, after all, it’s not harming anyone and it could be a form of artistic expression (or is that expulsion?)
Vote:April 24th, 2009 at 7:49 pm
I think James is right. I have seen these scum desecrate the Dawn Service. Personally I felt angry enough to want to tear down their stupid banner, and I was ashamed for the elderly service people and relatives there to honour their dead comrades and family.
But freedom does cut both ways.
Red, and you others. I hear your frustration that that freedom is being cynically and crudely manipulated by communists who, if they ever get power, will NEVER permit the same kind of freedom for others to protest their authoritarian creed.
We have to let them protest, but we must always understand that they are a fifth column that opposes every freedom we grant them. We are better than them. We must never let them win.
We should of course also starve them of oxygen. First step voluntary unionism for university students, no ifs, buts or maybes.
Then its onto the Public Service, no additional pay or perks for PSA or other union members, cancel them all.
Turn the blowtorch on TVNZ and National Radio, give Kim Hill and Chris Laidlaw and that irish plagiarist bint the big heave-ho.
No more Race Relations Conciliator, or other quangos.
Look into ALL NGO funding. Any NGO getting government funding for “representation” or “participation” cancel it immediately. That will kill most of the bullshit astroturf advocates at one fell swoop.
Root out their little piggy hideouts and their soft funding sources, let them demonstrate that they really represent anybody at all.
Vote:April 24th, 2009 at 7:51 pm
Ryan your link is merely an example of totalitarians competing for supremacy. Neither side was on any mission for freedom.
Vote:April 24th, 2009 at 7:52 pm
“Why were war criminals, who had not actually harmed anyone themselves, hung after the Nuremberg trials James?”
Because they DID harm others RED…they knowingly created,organised and issued orders that lead to the deaths….it wasn’t an accident…it was planned.
Why is a Women who probably won’t violate the rights of anyone else deserving of repression of her right to free speech and physical violence Red?
Got ya swastika back from the drycleaners in time for tomorrow?
Vote:April 24th, 2009 at 7:52 pm
oh yes, and no student loans for more than 6 years of study without a real qualification associated with it. Medicine, engineering, hard sciences. That sort of thing, useful stuff.
Vote:April 24th, 2009 at 7:54 pm
Deity, you’re right, but nobody is doing it. They’re all pandering to these totalitarian scum.
Vote:April 24th, 2009 at 7:54 pm
# Redbaiter (5872) Vote: Add rating 2 Subtract rating 1 Says:
April 24th, 2009 at 7:24 pm
“Nice one Red…so now its treason to stand up for freedom and whats right.”
You fucken idiot. You do not extend unlimited freedom to those whose objective is to take your freedom. Unless you want to lose that freedom.
This woman would have been hanging from a lamp post in an instant during the American War of Independence if she’d been seen burning the rebel flag. And rightly so.
What’s “be allowed” mean Ryan?? You think this is just some naughty child? Fuck off with your idealistic crap. Its dumbfucks like you who give these anti-freedom scum the foothold they need to take all of our freedoms.
Yeah Ryan you fucken idiot. Fuck off you dumbfuck.
LOL.
Vote:April 24th, 2009 at 7:54 pm
Might go and take a dump on his front lawn, after all, it’s not harming anyone and it could be a form of artistic expression (or is that expulsion?)”
That would be a violation of my property rights dimmy…thats the point.This Womens protest…while offensive….is not.
Vote:April 24th, 2009 at 7:56 pm
FWIW:
What is interesting is that IF the person concerned DOES appear and burn the flag (and by so doing show the utter contempt she has for those who died to give her that freedom to be abusive), and a member of the public is moved to ‘react’, it is a fair bet that she will yell amd scream about the fact that she has been assaulted and DEMAND that the police take action to arrest the perpertrator of the ‘crime’.
It is always very noticable that the activisits taunt and abuse the society they live in (especially the law), yet run for the protection of that self-same society (ESPECIALLY the law) when things become unglued and there is a not unreasonable ‘reaction’ against what they are doing.
Perhaps an application of the ‘Nelson touch’ would be in order for any Police Officer who has the misfortune to be in the vicinity of such a ‘reaction ‘ by the public?
One can but hope. . .
Vote:April 24th, 2009 at 7:57 pm
I know Red, but we can make them. Thats the point.
We are taxpayers, our government has to listen if we make our case clearly and loudly.
The communists must be cut off, but not from their right to be arseholes, that we must defend. But the bastards have no right to suck on the taxpayers teat while they do it.
There is nothing anti-democratic about voluntary unionism
There is nothing anti-democratic about cutting funding to professional “advocates” who deliver no services in exchange for our money.
We can make it happen.
Vote:April 24th, 2009 at 7:57 pm
What Deity said….bang on.You want to really deal to these people….? Cut off their taxpayer raped funding and leave them to sink or swim…..thats the way you sort them out….and make us the taxpayers richer to boot.
Vote:April 24th, 2009 at 7:58 pm
What you should do Shunda Barunda is shit on A flag, burn it while shouting out loud “oh Anarchy how i missed you” at 3 AM in the morning then leave it in the driveway gutter since it is your right to protest when where and how you please.
Don’t worry if you piss people off help will quickly be at hand.
Vote:April 24th, 2009 at 7:59 pm
“That would be a violation of my property rights dimmy…thats the point.This Womens protest…while offensive….is not.”
Wrong. She is seeking to ultimately violate everyone of your rights, and especially your property rights. She sees your tolerance not as a virtue but as weakness to be exploited. A keyhole through which she can slide through to open the door from the inside. You are just a foolish Trojan inviting the Greek’s horse into our midst.
Vote:April 24th, 2009 at 8:00 pm
James
It is you (and the rest of your libertarian pals) who do not “get it”.
I have no issue with this silly bitch burning the flag on any of the other 364 days in the year, indeed I would provide the fuel for her to do so in the hope that the same fuel spilt onto herself and she was engulfed in flames.
My point is her appalling lack of respect, for that she (or he if that be the case) deserves to suffer the vengeance of people who will be rightly offended a this lack of respect.
If you are consistent in your libertarian views then you should also defend my rights to be outraged, and you should also defend my rights to take direct action, frankly it seems you have no idea what you stand for.
Vote:April 24th, 2009 at 8:01 pm
“Because they DID harm others RED”
No they did not James. They merely issued orders.
Vote:April 24th, 2009 at 8:01 pm
Do not be too hard on her. She may be Prime Minister when she grows up.
Vote:April 24th, 2009 at 8:04 pm
“The communists must be cut off, but not from their right to be arseholes, that we must defend. But the bastards have no right to suck on the taxpayers teat while they do it.”
A democracy is under no obligation to provide the means for those who want to destroy it.
Vote:April 24th, 2009 at 8:05 pm
“Why is a Women who probably won’t violate the rights of anyone else deserving of repression of her right to free speech and physical violence Red?”
She is abusing and undervaluing that right that these people fought and died for. It is more about a pathalogical desire to be noticed, than anything to do with freedom.
Vote:Never seen a student body protesting for parents rights to raise, feed, and discipline their kids how they want to.
Freedom fighters my arse.
April 24th, 2009 at 8:12 pm
She should be arested for disturbing the peace.
Vote:April 24th, 2009 at 8:13 pm
This woman is cheering for Red China, Cuba and Nth Korea, all military regimes and dictatorships, who if they ever invaded NZ, would kill you and allow her to live, and what’s more she would help them kill you. Think about that you panty waisted libertarian suckers.
Vote:April 24th, 2009 at 8:17 pm
Wrong. She is seeking to ultimately violate everyone of your rights, and especially your property rights. She sees your tolerance not as a virtue but as weakness to be exploited.”
I agree taht that may well be her goal….but YOU are beating her to the punch! Its YOU who’s advocating violence and the violation of HER rights now.Are you so much of a hypocrite that you will violate freedom on the pretext of defending it ?! By violating her rights you have conceded the moral battle to her…..she wins.
Bruv:”My point is her appalling lack of respect, for that she (or he if that be the case) deserves to suffer the vengeance of people who will be rightly offended a this lack of respect.”
But there is no such thing as a right NOT to be offended Bruv….offense is not something given…its in the subjective mind of the offended.What offends one person may amuse another or not phase them at all…..if you want a society where “offence’ is justification for retalitory violence then you are wanting a chaotic shambles where none of us or our familtys bare safe…no thats.Objective law for this freedom lover thank you.
“If you are consistent in your libertarian views then you should also defend my rights to be outraged, and you should also defend my rights to take direct action, frankly it seems you have no idea what you stand for.”
You poor confused sap…..your being outraged is not a right…its a subjective feeling.Be offended…I can’t do anything about it.But your taking direct action is objectivly wrong and does violate this womens rights….she hasn’t violated any of your rights to warrant even a self defense action.
Vote:April 24th, 2009 at 8:23 pm
“I agree taht that may well be her goal….but YOU are beating her to the punch!”
Damn right.
Vote:April 24th, 2009 at 8:23 pm
James, When is the best time to get the rust out of a car? when it is a speck on the paint surface, or when the A pillar has rotted off and the floor pan is gone ala Fred flintstone style?
Vote:Freedom requires maintenance.
April 24th, 2009 at 8:24 pm
“She is abusing and undervaluing that right that these people fought and died for. It is more about a pathalogical desire to be noticed, than anything to do with freedom.
Never seen a student body protesting for parents rights to raise, feed, and discipline their kids how they want to.
Freedom fighters my arse.”
Sigh….god you are thick.Its not her whos defending freedom…it me and other lovers of freedom who are defending hers from you and your thug mates like Stumbanfueher Baiter.I defend her freedom because MINE is important to me…get it? If I let her’s be taken away I may be next in line….”First they came for the Jews….” Ring a bell pal?
“This woman is cheering for Red China, Cuba and Nth Korea, all military regimes and dictatorships, who if they ever invaded NZ, would kill you and allow her to live, and what’s more she would help them kill you. Think about that you panty waisted libertarian suckers.”
We do….and we are the ONLY ones who understand the principle invoilved and why it is so important….you and your angry mobbed mates are the embodiement of the very thing you claim this women wants to bring about….hey lady! too late….they are already here!
““I agree taht that may well be her goal….but YOU are beating her to the punch!”
Damn right.”
I meant that you are the thugs that you claim to be wanting to prevent arising….your supposed own worst enemy.
Vote:April 24th, 2009 at 8:26 pm
Its far too late in the day for your wet ego driven crap Jimmy.
Freedom in the west is is under threat like never before from these fucken communist subversives.
Time to start hanging the scum, before they start hanging us.
Vote:April 24th, 2009 at 8:27 pm
oh a fight on the right
Vote:pulls up a chair
April 24th, 2009 at 8:29 pm
James, When is the best time to get the rust out of a car? when it is a speck on the paint surface, or when the A pillar has rotted off and the floor pan is gone ala Fred flintstone style?
Vote:Freedom requires maintenance.
Fuck me Jesus
April 24th, 2009 at 8:32 pm
James, When is the best time to get the rust out of a car? when it is a speck on the paint surface, or when the A pillar has rotted off and the floor pan is gone ala Fred flintstone style?”
So we stop the Nazis by becoming the Nazis do we…? We fight Communism by becoming communists?
Brilliant …we fuck em by doing it to ourselves first..! Gee you are so smart….
We stop militant Islam by appeasing it and by restricting free speech and un PC commentary?
OH wait!! That last one is what Redbaiter et el are always screaming AGAINST when done by the Leftys…..! But now they are for it re this women…..hello?! anyboby awake in there!? Massive contradiction alert!
Vote:April 24th, 2009 at 8:32 pm
Tuija. Go to a chat room will you. This is a discussion forum. Attention seeking children should gather elsewhere.
Vote:April 24th, 2009 at 8:34 pm
Fire with fire Jim. You’re just a useful idiot letting yourself be used. No cowardly commie scum will ever use me.
Vote:April 24th, 2009 at 8:36 pm
Attention seeking children should gather elsewhere
Vote:I can’t believe you of all people said that
April 24th, 2009 at 8:37 pm
Fire with fire Jim. You’re just a useful idiot letting yourself be used. No cowardly commie scum will ever use me.”
Too late by the looks of it Red……and if anyone heres the useful idiot…..mmmmm!
“Attention seeking children should gather elsewhere
I can’t believe you of all people said that”
Yeah……it would be funny if he wasn’t serious eh?
“Irony” to Redbaiter must be a State in the US…;-0
Vote:April 24th, 2009 at 8:39 pm
@James 8:32 pm
There is no contradiction in self preservation, you are simply stripping morality back to it’s basic components, it is why a pack of piranhas can coexist peacefully and it is why she dose not have the right to breach the peace and incite violence.
Vote:April 24th, 2009 at 8:39 pm
Jimmy, I’m not the one cheering for the right of communist subversives to send signals to their international totalitarian mates about how weak NZers are. That’s you.
Vote:April 24th, 2009 at 8:41 pm
Wow, some people would appear to support watching our free society rot away under some psuedo self righteous legalistic interpretation of freedom, than stop some stroppy little bitch from offending elderly men and women, that quite frankly, have suffered enough.
Vote:Maybe you should ask the people who actually fought for “freedom” what they think of this “protest” at least they would be qualified to comment.
April 24th, 2009 at 8:42 pm
Jimmy, I’m not the one cheering for the right of communist subversives to send signals to their totalitarian mates about how weak NZers are.”
No….you are the one whos wanting to keep the totalitarianism in house and Kiwi made…how is it helping subversives to show them that real freedom is highly prized and is guarded by a vigulent people who resist ALL attacks on it…both foreign AND domestic?
Vote:April 24th, 2009 at 8:45 pm
“No….you are the one whos wanting to keep the totalitarianism in house and Kiwi made…”
Jim, you’re the danger. The Reds love fuckwits like you.
Vote:April 24th, 2009 at 8:45 pm
I find this action assaulting to my family and many other families that has served in World I and II and many other conflicts, the fought and some died for what we have today.
ANZAC Day has nothing to do with whether you agree or disagree with war. ANZAC Day is to recognise and acknowledge those that have gone before us – “Lest we forget”. It is a chance for us to reflect on what they sacrificed and remind us to appreciate that. This is one day that we seem to come together and stand proud of ourselves.
That can demonstrate their hatred of war anytime. They should not do this ANZAC Day this is for us remember those who have gone before us.
“LEST WE FORGET”
Vote:April 24th, 2009 at 8:48 pm
“There is no contradiction in self preservation, you are simply stripping morality back to it’s basic components, it is why a pack of piranhas can coexist peacefully and it is why she dose not have the right to breach the peace and incite violence.”
She most certainly DOES have that right…our servicemen went to fight for it…even if it offends everything they stood for.How is its self presevation to strip away the rights of your own people under the guise of wanting to protect them? Thats what the big socialist Governemts RED claims to oppose do….so whys he wanting to do the same?
Vote:April 24th, 2009 at 8:52 pm
James are you seriously suggesting there is no way, in all decency to stop some attention seeking brat offending a large number of people, without it causing the catastrophic collapse of our free society?
Vote:Take a look at the past 10 years under Helenstein, I would suggest Redbaiter would have alot of catch up to do to instigate a dent in the left wing control freakery that is still operating, if it can be stopped at all.
There is no harm in stoping offensive behavior to enforce some national dignity.
April 24th, 2009 at 8:55 pm
Maybe you should ask the people who actually fought for “freedom” what they think of this “protest” at least they would be qualified to comment.”
Just popped upstairs and did.My Dad is a WW2 vet and also a Libertarian.He understood perfectly the issue at hand and said that he didn’t fight and loose many of his mates just to have the very same evil arise here under the guise of protecting freedom.He,like me,thinks a protest by this women is misguided and inappropriate….BUT….its what he and his mates gave so much to defend and so he respects her right to do it.
Thats what a REAL defender of freedom thinks….suck on that you sellouts.
Vote:April 24th, 2009 at 8:57 pm
No she doesn’t have the right to Breach the peace, you are trying to make her rights eclipse the rights of others to assemble peacefully and strip away their right to do so.
Vote:April 24th, 2009 at 8:57 pm
As some Septic once said
Vote:“The right to be heard does not automatically include the right to be taken seriously.”
April 24th, 2009 at 8:59 pm
Libertarians are just the advance party for the communists. You don’t fight you lose.
Vote:April 24th, 2009 at 8:59 pm
Perhaps someone has suggested this already but just as much as the flag burner has the right to that form of expression in a free society, so do people with water bottles, buckets or a hose have the right to theirs. A well organized ANZAC fire brigade can show that the spirit lives on. We would not want a brush fire now, would we?
Vote:April 24th, 2009 at 9:02 pm
Can we put VUWSA President in a trench?
Vote:Can we now have that trench filled in?
I’m sure some old diggers have a shovel to help.
Please burn the FLAG and then be responsible for doing that.
Using young Students to spew your propaganda?
Repugnant low life.
No naming this person, lol, we all know
April 24th, 2009 at 9:04 pm
“James are you seriously suggesting there is no way, in all decency to stop some attention seeking brat offending a large number of people, without it causing the catastrophic collapse of our free society?”
No….because as soon as you allow exceptions to the principle you have opened the door to full tryanny.A precident will have been set and as sure as eggs it will be used to expand the restriction of “offensive” speech and action wider and wider.History tells us not to even give it a sniff.The problem could be eradicated by privatising all cenotaphs etc….give control to a parent company or similar (RSA?) that can enforce behaviour laws through its property right..All the while this happens on public land you will get these conflicts because eveyone is the public…including this women so we all have the “right” to be there.
“Take a look at the past 10 years under Helenstein, I would suggest Redbaiter would have alot of catch up to do to instigate a dent in the left wing control freakery that is still operating, if it can be stopped at all.
There is no harm in stoping offensive behavior to enforce some national dignity.”
Yes there is….because national dignity is a nonsense non concept.Its the same crap used by the Nazis and the Soviets to stamp their will on others…no thanks.
Vote:April 24th, 2009 at 9:09 pm
No she doesn’t have the right to Breach the peace, you are trying to make her rights eclipse the rights of others to assemble peacefully and strip away their right to do so.”
She has the right to free speech and free expression…as we all do.There are no rights “of others to assemble peacefully or a right to do so….not on public land at least.On private land its a whole different matter.As a member of the public she has as much right to be on public land as anyone else…..introduce private property rights and shes fucked.
“Perhaps someone has suggested this already but just as much as the flag burner has the right to that form of expression in a free society, so do people with water bottles, buckets or a hose have the right to theirs. A well organized ANZAC fire brigade can show that the spirit lives on. We would not want a brush fire now, would we?”
Good idea.No ones rights are violated so no issue.
Vote:April 24th, 2009 at 9:09 pm
At what point do libertarians decide that the line is crossed? Eg if the flag-carrying woman has a concealed plastic explosive corset attached to a detonator, when is her right to protest eclipsed by others’ right to not be blown up?
Vote:April 24th, 2009 at 9:12 pm
“Yes there is….because national dignity is a nonsense non concept”
So because I am proud to be a New Zealander it makes me a Nazi?
Vote:I am a bit simple James, so it is taking me a while to cotton on to your logic, my simple mind is stuggling to grasp this whole idea of freedom. It must have been all that goose stepping I did today, rattling my brain around
April 24th, 2009 at 9:12 pm
“Libertarians are just the advance party for the communists. You don’t fight you lose.”
i
Its you Red whos laying the path for others to follow.By setting a standard now thats its ok to repress with violence dissenting views and opinions you have surrended the moral high ground to your enemies….who are actually your philisophical brethren.
Vote:April 24th, 2009 at 9:17 pm
Because stamping out human rights violations is clearly not high on their agenda, they have not even signaled it.
Freedom of association is a right granted to every New Zealander. It is one of the rights the ANZAC’s fought to protect but it is denied every university student in New Zealand.
I say every because Auckland students, despite membership of AUSA being voluntary, are still forced to fund its political acts compulsorily via the service agreement.
National, bring our tertiary institutions into the 21st century and in line with human rights laws.
Vote:April 24th, 2009 at 9:18 pm
Ryan – why should the default position be that I am a member of an organisation? I should never be compelled in the first place. Just because I can then opt out does not make the default of the original compulsion okay. As for your argument that soliciting membership is a waste of the Union’s money, well tough. The Union, like any other organisation, is providing a service – it needs to market itself. The Union should have to convince me to join. Membership of the Union should have sufficient benefits to justify to its members the need to spend some of their money on marketing so as to achieve its goals.
And if it doesn’t… then the Union should not exist, no matter how much you personally may want it to.
As far as the right to burn the flag goes… if freedom means you can’t burn the flag on Anzac Day then freedom means nothing at all. That may sound idealistic and dogmatic, but freedom is what Anzac Day is all about. It’s what all those young men died for.
It should be legal to burn the flag. Is it moral? Of course not, anyone who does it is scum. If I saw someone doing it my response would be unprintable. I wouldn’t be too sorry if someone kicked their arse either. But you don’t have to like something to accept that someone has a right to do it.
Vote:April 24th, 2009 at 9:19 pm
“At what point do libertarians decide that the line is crossed? Eg if the flag-carrying woman has a concealed plastic explosive corset attached to a detonator, when is her right to protest eclipsed by others’ right to not be blown up?
At the point where this Women engaes in violence towards others or can realistically be judged to be about to.Until then as long a she is not violating anyones rights to life,liberty,property she is pefectly entitled to protest and make a cunt of herself.This doesn’t mean everyone else can’t boo her,walk away etc….just not physically prevent her going about her business.If she does attempt to use force its then perfectly ok to use force in defence to stop her.As already explained this would be a non issue on private property….the owners could have her removed and barred for whatever reason.
Vote:April 24th, 2009 at 9:19 pm
James, you are advocating the slinging of mud all over your precious “freedom”.
Vote:Is freedom a philisophical concept to you or something you enjoy?
Personally I dont like someone running rough shod over something I value.
So how exactly should we resist those who don’t respect or value the freedom we have?, because they sure as hell will take it from us if we don’t.
April 24th, 2009 at 9:23 pm
James if she protests in the name of every student at Victoria university then she is out of line.
That is precisely the problem with compulsory membership, for a representative of a compulsory union to act justly and ethically they must be rendered into apolitical muppets because students disagree and when it comes to wars, which have nothing whatsoever to do with student affairs, they cannot take a stance if they represent everyone because everyone does not have the same opinion.
Vote:April 24th, 2009 at 9:24 pm
“So because I am proud to be a New Zealander it makes me a Nazi?
I am a bit simple James, so it is taking me a while to cotton on to your logic, my simple mind is stuggling to grasp this whole idea of freedom. It must have been all that goose stepping I did today, rattling my brain around”
You didn’t define “national dignity”. To me it sounds like a collectivist buzz phrase …much like “the common good” intrinsic value’ sustainibility,principles of the Treaty” etc.Nations can’t have dignity,they are non existent abstractions…only individual people can.
Vote:April 24th, 2009 at 9:24 pm
‘Tis but a scratch, ask for me tomorrow, but it’s enough…
Vote:April 24th, 2009 at 9:28 pm
Fine. Tell her to do it on her own time. In her own name.
She doesn’t get to do it on behalf of all students.
National need to dump the law that says she can.
Vote:April 24th, 2009 at 9:36 pm
I guess the concept of freedom is being lost on me, after 10 years of socialist bliss I have lost the ability to think for myself or desire a better future, and now that mother sha boo boo has left the country, any aspirations I had have been quelched by my deep seated grief.
Vote:April 24th, 2009 at 9:37 pm
James.
If this person sees fit to desecrate what many people consider sacred, should we then see fit to desecrate what this person holds sacred?
To burn a flag as a protest on a day where we commemorate those of our countrymen who fought and died under that flag, only shows that that person does not understand the fundamental right that they fought for and died for, which is the right to be recognised and respected.
Nazi Germany destroyed the symbols of all that they deemed unworthy. Do you advocate that sort of display as an expression of freedom of speech?
I would have thought that freedom of speech included the freedom to worship as one sees fit, and to engage in these freedoms without the sort of insulting behaviour that this person advocates.
Would it be ok if the national front carried out cross burnings outside a mosque during Ramadan? Would you mind terribly if the Mormons picketed the Catholics for serving communion wine?
Part of living in a free society is respecting the freedoms of others. Burning a New Zealand flag on Anzac Day at the dawn service is astoundingly disrespectful. Try burning a Tino Rangitiratanga flag at the treaty Grounds on Waitangi day and see how far you get.
Vote:April 24th, 2009 at 9:37 pm
# Redbaiter (5885) Vote: Add rating 0 Subtract rating 0 Says:
April 24th, 2009 at 8:45 pm
“No….you are the one whos wanting to keep the totalitarianism in house and Kiwi made…”
Jim, you’re the danger. The Reds love fuckwits like you.
Yeah Jim, you fuckwit.
LOL.
Vote:April 24th, 2009 at 9:37 pm
James if she protests in the name of every student at Victoria university then she is out of line. ”
Yes….and thats a matter for the students to sort out….with the compulsion removed.
“James, you are advocating the slinging of mud all over your precious “freedom”.
No….thats what Im oppossing by taking you,Red et el to task over your crys to violate it re this woman.
“Is freedom a philisophical concept to you or something you enjoy?”
Freedom is an insepperable,objective requirement for man if he is to live and survive as man.Its not optional.If I am to enjoy it I must defend it…from all threats.If I want to keep my freedom I must defend it for everyone else too….if I don’t why should others defend mine?
“Personally I dont like someone running rough shod over something I value.”
Exactly…thats what Im standing up for here.Im not defending what this woman may do…Im defending her right to DO it….thats the point.
“So how exactly should we resist those who don’t respect or value the freedom we have?, because they sure as hell will take it from us if we don’t.’
By doing what I have been doing here and defending freedom from ALL threats to it….regardless of who or where the threat comes. Violating this womans rights doesn’t help protect freedom…it actually helps destroy it faster than if we we faced by a foreign threat alone.History shows that individual freedom is more often lost via democracy and internal decay moral than foreign invasion.People let it be lost by slow State expansion rather than having it torn away suddenly by invaders.
Vote:April 24th, 2009 at 9:43 pm
“By doing what I have been doing here and defending freedom from ALL threats to it”
Utter bullshit. You have been undermining our liberty with your craven supplication to those who would destroy it. You are a dangerous and misguided fool who we humour at our own peril.
Vote:April 24th, 2009 at 9:46 pm
# Redbaiter (5886) Vote: Add rating 0 Subtract rating 0 Says:
April 24th, 2009 at 9:43 pm
“By doing what I have been doing here and defending freedom from ALL threats to it”
Utter bullshit. You have been undermining our liberty with your craven supplication to those who would destroy it. You are a dangerous and misguided fool who we humour at our own peril.
Yeah James, damn you talk a lot of bullshit.
LOL.
Vote:April 24th, 2009 at 9:47 pm
James.
I agree with your argument to a certain point, but when the “freedom of expression” becomes a direct insult to those who fought and died for the right of free expression on the very day we commemorate their sacrifice, then I wonder if that person actually values that freedom.
What’s next? Firebombing the local RSA?
Vote:April 24th, 2009 at 9:49 pm
Call yourself a libertarian? How are students supposed to “sort out” a piece of legislation?
Students go to university to get degrees, (unless they are lefties, then they go to get careers in politics in which case compulsory membership is like free funding for their futures in the Labour and Green parties.) How are students supposed to lobby for, draft legislation and get it passed in between lectures?
Legislation that violates freedom of association, conscience and religious belief is a governments duty to rid their constituents of – or do libertarians not support freedom now?
Vote:April 24th, 2009 at 9:52 pm
What is it about student unions that excites such passions. Seriously folk. Go to bed. Me, I’m just waiting for the start of St Kilda and Port Adelaide… c’mon the Sainters… c’mon
Vote:April 24th, 2009 at 9:53 pm
Fuck, I am amazed that people here are even debating with James. So long as burning a flag is not illegal, then anyone should be free to burn a flag on whatever damn day they wish.
Should it also be illegal to tattoo a swastika on your arm?
Should it also be illegal to draw pictures mocking Jesus?
How about pictures mocking Mohammad? Oh wait…
FFS.
Vote:April 24th, 2009 at 9:55 pm
“BUT….its what he and his mates gave so much to defend and so he respects her right to do it. That’s what a REAL defender of freedom thinks….suck on that you sellouts.”
James – you’re are getting a little too excited here. This is not about running away and asking dad what he thinks! – This is about some filthy cow disrespecting our brave dead Anzacs in one of the most cruel ways.
Vote:People can react in many ways when disrespect is shown against their family members, particulalry ones such as KIA Anzacs.
Personally – if I witnessed it I’d like to burn the bitch at a stake (but that’s just me)
April 24th, 2009 at 9:58 pm
Patrick – I suppose you’re in favour of hate speech legislation too then?
Vote:April 24th, 2009 at 10:01 pm
This woman is a threat to our internal security, to our armed forces, and to everyone of us who values democracy over a totalitarian dictatorship.
Anyone who supports her cause or aids and abets it is helping to put our soldiers and our citizens and our democracy in danger.
She has no other objective than to take away our freedom. Everything she does or says is designed to further that objective. She uses the freedom others have fought for to advance the ideas they fought against.
She is a traitor to Western Democracy and an agent of the global communist movement. She is not due anything other than contempt.
The time for tolerating this kind of scum is long past. We are in extreme danger of losing everything our forefathers fought for, and the time is too short and the threat too immediate to offer the hand of tolerance to these totalitarian filth the way we have in the past. They are not benign harmless eccentrics. They are a clear and present danger.
Vote:April 24th, 2009 at 10:05 pm
“Patrick – I suppose you’re in favour of hate speech legislation too then?”
Wow, at last the braindead attention seeking yellow back has summoned enough courage to enter the debate.
So you’re all for abusing homosexuals wimmen and minorities are you?
Vote:April 24th, 2009 at 10:06 pm
Well Rebel.
I can’t believe you are supporting someone turning up to a peaceful assembly and then brazenly antagonizing those attending when there is plenty of square millage of Public land to protest on, unless of course you like the idea of people being intimidated, bullied and antagonized for their beliefs and traditions.
Vote:kind of like drawing a picture of Mohammad in the Netherlands.
April 24th, 2009 at 10:10 pm
So you’re all for abusing homosexuals wimmen and minorities are you?
No, I don’t agree with abusing them. But I support someone’s right to hold the view that they think homosexuality is wrong. And if so, then it is up to the rest of society to convince this person otherwise – in much the same manner that the correct way to correct this VUWSA President’s view on ANZAC day is to talk to her, rather than ‘illegalising’ her viewpoint.
Vote:April 24th, 2009 at 10:11 pm
James.
“If this person sees fit to desecrate what many people consider sacred, should we then see fit to desecrate what this person holds sacred?”
Up to the point of destroying her property or physically assulting her then I have no problem with you ridiculing her,publishing hers views to draw scorn and derision etc.You are not violating her rights by doing so.
“To burn a flag as a protest on a day where we commemorate those of our countrymen who fought and died under that flag, only shows that that person does not understand the fundamental right that they fought for and died for, which is the right to be recognised and respected.”
Agree she is an idiot and ignorant….but those are not crimes that justify violence and state repression being used against her…..no matter how tempting.
“Nazi Germany destroyed the symbols of all that they deemed unworthy. Do you advocate that sort of display as an expression of freedom of speech?”
No…..its not what shes doing I agree with….I don’t.I strongly disagree.But I defend her RIGHT to do it….they are two totally seperate things.As long as she’s not violating the rights of anyone else shes at liberty to do as she pleases….private property rights issues aside.
“I would have thought that freedom of speech included the freedom to worship as one sees fit, and to engage in these freedoms without the sort of insulting behaviour that this person advocates.”
The problem is the existence of public land.It leads to all sorts of conflicts such as this because everyone is the public so therefore we all want a say in what happens on it and noone can claim an ownership right and dictate what happens on it. Its the same issue that binds up Maori land thanks to the tribal system.
“Would it be ok if the national front carried out cross burnings outside a mosque during Ramadan? Would you mind terribly if the Mormons picketed the Catholics for serving communion wine?”
The question is…who owns the land the protest is occuring on……and who owns the Mosque? If the Mosque is privatly owned..by the local Muslims then they can bar the protestors…at least from the Mosque grounds. Private property rights prevent conflicts like this from occuring by defining just who owns the property…and therefore who sets the rules surronding its use.Here is a good essay that deals with this issue…
http://www.liberalvalues.org.nz/index.php?action=view_journal&journal_id=92
“Part of living in a free society is respecting the freedoms of others. Burning a New Zealand flag on Anzac Day at the dawn service is astoundingly disrespectful. Try burning a Tino Rangitiratanga flag at the treaty Grounds on Waitangi day and see how far you get.”
Agree with the first part…re the treaty grounds….are they tribal property…or public land?
Vote:April 24th, 2009 at 10:12 pm
I can’t believe you are supporting someone turning up to a peaceful assembly and then brazenly antagonizing those attending when there is plenty of square millage of Public land to protest on, unless of course you like the idea of people being intimidated, bullied and antagonized for their beliefs and traditions.
kind of like drawing a picture of Mohammad in the Netherlands.
Wait, so you think it should be illegal for someone to draw a picture of Mohammad in the Netherlands?
Believe it or not, Helen Clark would probably find it offensive for you to turn up to Parliament protesting the EFB. Does that mean for the sake of not offending her your right to do so should be removed?
As retarded as I find the VUWSA President’s views on ANZAC day, I have no problem with her turning up to a public place to do something that is not illegal.
Vote:April 24th, 2009 at 10:13 pm
“No, I don’t agree with abusing them.”
So why are you asking Patrick if he’s for hate speech legislation when you admit you support it yourself? You probably aren’t educated or sophisticated enough to recognise it, but you’ve just been found guilty of rank deceit and hypocrisy.
Vote:April 24th, 2009 at 10:14 pm
Um, aside from yourselves all having a complete mental about the activities of a STUDENT UNION (!!!), I’m pretty sure no one else in the country cares right now. But it’s good that everyone can get themselves fired up for the dawn parade tomorrow. Maybe it would be a good idea for y’all to smoke some crack too, so you can stay up all night and be good and ready to go bonkers in the morning – in front of all the people who have actually fought in real life wars that weren’t even on the internet!
I too feel much safer doing my hypermasculine posturing in the safety of the comments thread of a political party’s blog rather than in the real world.
Vote:April 24th, 2009 at 10:15 pm
James.
“I agree with your argument to a certain point, but when the “freedom of expression” becomes a direct insult to those who fought and died for the right of free expression on the very day we commemorate their sacrifice, then I wonder if that person actually values that freedom.
What’s next? Firebombing the local RSA?”
If you haven’t understood the difference yet then theres no hope.It doesn’t matter if she values her freedom or not.Its the principle that I am defending by defending her rights…wheather she cares for them or not.Its me Im really protecting here ….not her as such.
Vote:April 24th, 2009 at 10:18 pm
Rebel – If we could ask those brave souls who gave their lives in the name of freedom, if they would have given their lives to have this recipient bitch effectively kick over their headstones?
Vote:The freedom they defended many decades ago was not in the context frequently abused today
April 24th, 2009 at 10:20 pm
Says the guy who took a year out of his life to campaign for and be a President of one.
You know full well what it is Paul. Compulsory student unions are one of the corner stones that keeps left-wing politics popular in New Zealand.
Guaranteed money for campaigns, a platform to spout whatever you want and to prevent whatever information you don’t want being heard on campus, the media and government have an easy way to find out “what students think” which is of course the left wing message being spouted by the politicians.
Once you have been on the student union its an easy hop, skip and a jump into real left-wing politics isn’t it: Sir Geoffrey Palmer, Steve Maharey, Jonathan Hunt, Tim Shadbolt, Mark Peck, Trevor Mallard, Marion Hobbs, David Benson-Pope, Darren Hughes, Paul Swain, Charles Chauvel, Grant Robertson, Chris Hipkins, Jills Angus Burney, Jordan Carter, Iain Lees-Galloway, Kate Sutton, Conor Roberts, Sue Kedgley, Nandor Tanczos, Richard Pole, Roland Sapsford, Cathy Olsen, Catherine Delahunty, Kevin Hague, Alick Shaw, Matt Robson, Brendon Lane, Rebecca Matthews, Anna McMartin, Joseph Randall, Richard Mitchell, Victor Billot, Julie Fairey, Kane O’Connell, Quentin Findlay, Dave MacPherson, Garry Moore, Don Franks, Nick Kelly, Joel Cosgrove, Jasmine Freemantle, Heleyni Pratley… to name a few left-wing candidates in recent elections who were also student polticians of some form or the other.
How would some of these have people gotten their careers started without compusory student unions?
Vote:April 24th, 2009 at 10:23 pm
James, that you continue to claim to be defending a principle does not mean that you are in actuality doing so.
You are confused about your principles. That is all that is evident to me. You are so self absorbed you are putting your narcissism before our country’s security.
Things have changed greatly in the last few months. You need to know that the Communists are gathering their forces for a massive assault on our liberty. We must confront them at every opportunity or they will win. We must also confront the useful idiots among us. The weakness that you have habitually exhibited is a luxury we can no longer afford.
Vote:April 24th, 2009 at 10:27 pm
“James – you’re are getting a little too excited here. This is not about running away and asking dad what he thinks! – This is about some filthy cow disrespecting our brave dead Anzacs in one of the most cruel ways.
People can react in many ways when disrespect is shown against their family members, particulalry ones such as KIA Anzacs.
Personally – if I witnessed it I’d like to burn the bitch at a stake (but that’s just me)”
Patrick…I was responding to this question…”Maybe you should ask the people who actually fought for “freedom” what they think of this “protest” at least they would be qualified to comment.”
So I did what was suggested…..ok?
That you think its ok to violate others who disagree with you says it all….join Einzatgruppen Redbaiter and burn em all for the glory of the Riech,God,whatever…
Vote:April 24th, 2009 at 10:29 pm
dpf laughs maniacally in his chamber/den.
at the (comment-generating) success of his pre-anzac day flag-burning thread..
..(he has that power company to think of/breathing down his kneck..
..eh..?..)
phil(whoar.co.nz)
Vote:April 24th, 2009 at 10:30 pm
Things have changed greatly in the last few months. You need to know that the Communists are gathering their forces for a massive assault on our liberty. We must confront them at every opportunity or they will win. We must also confront the useful idiots among us. The weakness that you have habitually exhibited is a luxury we can no longer afford.”
Newsflash Red…if you are representative of the NZ mindset then the commies have already won. By the time they gett here all our freedoms will already be long gone…
Vote:April 24th, 2009 at 10:33 pm
“Newsflash Red…if you are representative of the NZ mindset then the commies have already won. By the time they gett here all our freedoms will already be long gone…”
No James. It is you the commies are cheering on. Just look at who your allies are. The more of you, the easier it will be for the Reds.
Vote:April 24th, 2009 at 10:34 pm
I’ll be going to an ANZAC service in a few hours (so must sign off soon to be awake for it). I go to show my respect for those who gave their lives or were disabled for doing what their country asked of them.
Not that it necessarily was right in every case (and in the case of Vietnam, it has been shown to be demonstrably wrong). But, in any case, people served their country, and I respect that.
I also respect the right of those who choose to protest against war. My father was a WWII vet, and he was appalled by the atrocities committed by the Allies (our side) and never went to an ANZAC parade. I look at it somewhat differently (as above), and do go to ANZAC parades.
But I find it strange that those who espouse individual freedom here most of the time would condemn someone for protesting at an ANZAC service. As long as it is lawful, isn’t freedom of expression what liberty is all about?
Vote:April 24th, 2009 at 10:38 pm
“No, I don’t agree with abusing them.”
So why are you asking Patrick if he’s for hate speech legislation when you admit you support it yourself? You probably aren’t educated or sophisticated enough to recognise it, but you’ve just been found guilty of rank deceit and hypocrisy.
No Redbaiter you psycho, look mate if it helps your anger management issues I’ll speak to you in a loving manner.
What I mean dear is that I support someone’s right to hold whatever views they wish on an issue. This does not mean I support their right to commit violence. Do you understand that sweetie-pie? So when you say ‘abuse’ I do not support the VUWSA President’s right to physically harm the people at the ANZAC parade paying their respects. However, I do support her right to burn a flag because she is not hurting anyone in the process, and in burning the flag she is signifying her view that she does not support the idea of ANZAC day (for whatever ignorant reason). Oh yeah and I love you by the way you cute little prince.
In the same way I do not support hate speech legislation, because I support someone’s right to call someone else a faggot if that is what they genuinely believe. Sure it’s mean, but it’s up to society to educate and shame the homophobic into changing his or her views. So long as he is only thinking that it’s wrong to be gay, and not carrying out acts such as violence against the homosexual, then he has a right to his view.
In the same way I do not support hate speech legislation, because I support someone’s right to say Jesus is a crock of shit if they genuinely do not believe in God. For someone who is deeply offended by this because they saw The Passion of the Christ or whatever, it is up to that Christian to convince the non-believer that to mock Jesus is wrong because Jesus died for their sins or whatever.
If you were to be consistent in your views Redbaiter, because you do not support this woman’s right to protest against ANZAC day because it would offend the veterans, you would also not support someone’s right to protest against the EFB because it offends the Labour party. You would not support a non-Christian’s right to protest against Christianity because it offends a Christian that that person does not respect God. You would not support the National Front’s right to form a political party and be ridiculed about it because his party’s views offend the Asians. Therefore someone like you would support hate speech legislation, whereas I would not.
Vote:April 24th, 2009 at 10:39 pm
Im breaking my own rule here but..
A failed student of reading comprehension writes…
“Call yourself a libertarian? How are students supposed to “sort out” a piece of legislation?”
I never said they would….I said that once it had been sorted politically then they could deal with this women as they choose…..need it simplified for you some more brunhilda?
“Students go to university to get degrees, (unless they are lefties, then they go to get careers in politics in which case compulsory membership is like free funding for their futures in the Labour and Green parties.) How are students supposed to lobby for, draft legislation and get it passed in between lectures?”
They seem to be able to whail and scream and play politics when it suits them…but its not my issue,its the students. who this woman clims to represnt is irrealvant to me…its the rights issue Im debating…..haven’t you been able to keep up?
“Legislation that violates freedom of association, conscience and religious belief is a governments duty to rid their constituents of – or do libertarians not support freedom now?”
Where did I ever say anything to give a reasonable person that impression? You are still an unrepentant liar eh chubby?
Vote:April 24th, 2009 at 10:40 pm
Madeleine, no I didn’t. I did campaign pretty thorougly for a month, but that’s it. I don’t know that it keeps the left-wing in talent either… though Grant Robertson’s easily one of the most talented politicians I’ve encountered in years… now, off to watch the Saints… night.
Vote:April 24th, 2009 at 10:44 pm
“Do you understand that sweetie-pie?”
FYI, I stopped reading after that braindead example of prehistoric patronising shit. I don’t have the time to shoot the breeze with senile octogenarians.
Vote:April 24th, 2009 at 10:46 pm
Toad: “But I find it strange that those who espouse individual freedom here most of the time would condemn someone for protesting at an ANZAC service. As long as it is lawful, isn’t freedom of expression what liberty is all about?”
Thank you Mr Toad…..well said and right on. You are onside with the angels while Red is where he claims everyone else is….the poor dear.
Off to bed…dawn service tomorrow.I will be there paying my respects and defending the rights of people to be wrong.
Rebel Heart…..well said.The hypocrite will not be moved but nice try.
Vote:April 24th, 2009 at 10:50 pm
My problem with this –
Is that she is acting in the capacity of VUWSA. They have decided not to lay a wreath of rememberance, however to violate the service with a cruel act – in the face of our veterans.
Due to compulsory membership – she is violating this day for everyone who attends VIC.
Yes – I agree she personally can go ahead and do it if she wants – but when she is operating under the VUWSA capacity this is a disgrace. If she wants to proceed she can tender her resignation immediately.
Vote:April 24th, 2009 at 10:52 pm
It appears that whenever Redbaiter is stumped for a rebuttal he will simply ignore the substance of someone else’s argument and excuse himself from the debate by blaming a hectic schedule.
Vote:April 24th, 2009 at 10:53 pm
A flag was burned a few years back. There was a brief commotion and the parade continued. I support peoples right to burn the flag but I don’t think it’s appropriate to do so at an ANZAC dawn parade.
There are always consequences for making a highly emotive gesture at a highly emotionally charged event, immediate or otherwise.
Vote:April 24th, 2009 at 10:54 pm
“As long as it is lawful”
Indeed, my personal opinion is she is breaching the peace, thats just me though …
Vote:April 24th, 2009 at 11:03 pm
Hey Madeleine, you were in the Waikato Student Union, isn’t that right? When it was voluntary and the entire campus went to absolute pieces. Yes, that’s right, I think it’s coming back to me now. Your husband convinced you that a previous abortion required you to publicly flaggelate yourself in front of everyone about it before he and God could forgive you. And then you guys used the student union money to go to the states, supposedly on union business, but instead you spent time picketing abortion clinics.
Well then, it’s very good to see that you’re still out and about and fighting corruption. Phewf.
Vote:April 24th, 2009 at 11:04 pm
I agree. I’d advise avoiding both of their tactics – including punishing someone for what they think, punishing someone for what you think they might do in the future but have not.
Neither are marks of a free society.
Vote:April 24th, 2009 at 11:06 pm
pffft. Seems its considered politically correct to kick over a headstone, but politically incorrect to stop someone doing so – yeah right
Vote:April 24th, 2009 at 11:10 pm
Pffft be consistent Patrick do you think it’s politically correct to offend Muslims by drawing caricatures of Mohammad and politically incorrect for them to stop cartoonists by drawing those ‘offensive’ pictures by threatening to stop these cartoonists by threatening to kill the cartoonists, in the same manner some posters here are threatening to attack the VUWSA President should she voice her views at the parade.
Vote:April 24th, 2009 at 11:29 pm
The caricatures of Mohammad aren’t offensive to me, and I don’t give a fuck about political correctness – or muslims.
Vote:I was merely demonstrating the hypocrisy of the politically correct left wing numpties on this threat
April 24th, 2009 at 11:46 pm
David- WHY hasn’t National started working on VSM already? This is the best chance in a generation to get this passed and the Nats are sitting on their hands. I am absolutely disgusted in having to read this stupid nonsense every year when the far left use students money to publicise their campaign of hate against NZ values and history.
It has to end now. We won’t have a chance after the next election if we don’t have a pure National/ACT coalition.
Vote:April 24th, 2009 at 11:49 pm
Hey, bananapants, I agree with your support for compulsory student union membership.
But bringing personal shit like you did into it is an extremely bad look (although I find fundie Christians difficult too). You do no good through that post for what I think is a valid argument.
Vote:April 24th, 2009 at 11:49 pm
Bananapants repeat that statement with your real name.
Lying about people and the state of the financial affairs of an organisation, repeating statements that have been the subject of defamation action is very easy to do when you remain anonymous.
Vote:April 25th, 2009 at 12:03 am
Compulsory student union membership… now there is crock of shit if ever I saw one. Umm let me think, pay your money to people you don’t respect so they can arrange protests you do not agree with or have any influence over. Let them wallow in their own self importance on a guaranteed income… WTF!
You supporters of compulsory union memberships should hang your heads in shame. Shame shame shame.
Vote:April 25th, 2009 at 12:07 am
It was settled out of court. Retractions were written, apologies were made. I have the documentation in my files along with the audited accounts of the Waikato Students Union for the year I was Vice-President and my medical records.
Sadly it doesn’t stop the lies, note the plurality, from re-surfacing.
You can contact me via my webpage.
Vote:April 25th, 2009 at 12:17 am
Madeline, correct me if I’m wrong, but isn’t the fact that WSU was in real trouble after the VSU swtich well known? Didn’t membership get down to around 40? I can’t abide by anything else Bananapants said, but if I’m wrong, please feel free to correct me
Vote:April 25th, 2009 at 12:22 am
So what if the union membership went down to about 40? It simply shows that nobody values the student union. Why is it so hard to accept that the union will be supported as long as it is useful to students?
Vote:April 25th, 2009 at 12:28 am
“(although I find fundie Christians difficult too). ”
Toad, leave the Christians out of it, be niccccce
Vote:April 25th, 2009 at 12:30 am
Bananapants.
Your making these comments gives me the opportunity to rebut them publically yet again. It also gives me the opportunity to let kiwiblog readers know a bit about the types of organisations students are forced to join.
In 1999, while I was student president I also, I was taught ethics for the University of Waikato Philosophy department ( I have taught ethics at Otago, laidlaw College, IMDS and St Peters College) and had done some post graduate research on abortion ( a topic I latter did a PhD on this topic). On the back of this research I was asked to speak at a youth camp/ conference on the abortion question in the US . Madeliene and I accepted the offer and in June of 1999, took a week of my annaul leave to go to the US and present my talk. This was not Waikato Student Union (WSU) buisness and it was not funded by WSU funds. The trip was paid for privately as a perusal of the 1999 WSU budget will show. While, in the US Madeliene discovered she was pregnant this was a great joy to us as it was our first child together and we had only been married for just over a year. This was short lived in August she tragically lost our child to a miscarriage, she was hospitalised briefly as a result.
While I took a couple of days out to be with Madeleine in hospital, and executive member William Hongara circulated a story that I had used WSU funds to pay for my trip and passed the story on to the media. This was completely false Hongara had got confused over the fact that annual leave I had taken, which I was contractually entitled to was included in my honoraium. After investigation by the executive of the financial records he retracted the comment in an executive report and Nexus publically retracted it to avoid litigation for defamation. I have a copy of the WSU 1999 audited budget and there is no evidence anywhere for these claims. I also have copies of most of the paper trial around this whole thing.
A few weeks latter, Madeliene received an anonymous letter taunting her it claimed that she had caused the miscarriage herself by “her mad lust for power” and went on to state that they hoped “it [the miscarriage] would haunt her forever.” Computer records showed that the letter was written by someone in the WSU executive office that morning and only William Hongara and Mecina Stanbury has been using the office that morning. From that point on both of them continued to make miscarriage jokes to see who could reduce Madeliene to tears first.
In 2000, 4 months after I had left Hamilton and was studying Theology in Auckland. I discovered that Pita Cammock 2000 WSU President and Mecina Stanbury 2000 WSU Vice President had called a public meeting where they had circulated a document accusing me of financial impropriety to the tune over 40,000 $ and asking for my life membership to be revoked. This was in fact illegal: the WSU constitution did not allow such a meeting to be called unless the accused had been (a) informed in advance of the meeting, (b) informed of the charges, (c) presented with the evidence, and (d) given time to make a defence. The meeting had lapsed for want of a quorum but a second one had been rescheduled the following week. When my lawyers contacted the WSU they decided to postphone the meeting and promised by lawyer I would be provided with the accusation and evidence for it. They never did and the meeting was never rescheduled.
Since then on half a dozen occasions, people associated with the WSU have repeated these comments in internet forums and to the media. Each time I have requested evidence and each time none has eventuated. I was also informed by people at OUSA that WSU members had approached them with this information while I was studying at Otago as ammunition to use against me. I have written to the WSU repeatedly asking them for the evidence that was leading them to make these claims, none has ever been provided. After I graduated from Otago in 2006 I rang them up and asked if I could be sent copies of the relevant financial documents and records of events from my time as President at my expense and was informed that these files had all been mysteriously destroyed.
Paul Williams (WSU president in 1994 and NZUSA President in 1995) asks why student union membership causes such a amougst some commentators in kiwiblog. One reason is simple, that fact that 10 years since my wifes miscarriage we are still subjected to defamatory attacks of this sort about an incident which was deeply traumatic and sad for us at the time shows precisely how dispicable these organisations can be.
Bananapants I challenge you to post under your real name and to disclose any associations with student associations that you have.
Vote:April 25th, 2009 at 12:31 am
Are you even allowed to set flags on fire in a public place?
Vote:Or do they just turn a blind eye to that like the whole shooting the flag thing.
April 25th, 2009 at 12:38 am
First and foremost voluntary membership is about freedom of association. It is about students having choice as to whether they fund and join a political organisation. If no one chooses to join and hand money over to such an organisation freely then where is the justification to force them to? If an organisation is that irrelevant and badly managed then it deserves to die – the solution is not to initiate forced subscription.
Student Choice, of which I was a member, researched, campaigned for and installed voluntary membership of the WSU. Our research showed that due to the years of corruption, politicising, blown budgets that go hand in hand with compulsory student unions membership always dived in the first 2-5 years, but then, provided careful management of money, accountability, non-politicised leadership and relevant student services were provided and made known to students, membership would rise again.
For this reason the move to voluntary was delayed so that a planning year could be run to try to build positive associations with the WSU up and to prepare financially as the WSU was in a terrible financial mess following bad leadership and management by pro-compulsory executives (though a notable exception was the year Paul Williams was president, he did a very good job).
Because I supported the concept of a relevant, accountable student association and because I wanted the union to be something students could be proud of and would want to join I stood for and served the student union in its second year of voluntary membership and worked extremely hard to build back the membership. Yes, going into my year there was a small number of members, it was not as low as 40, but it was in the hundreds (the precise number eludes me as it was some years ago now) however, by the close of the year and under the implementation of our executives campaign drives and strategies the membership rose to over 2000 or 20% of the campus at the time.
Matt and I handed a viable, voluntary student union over to the next executive but they were not interested in continuing the work and spent the year playing at politics and violating the constitution which stated they were not allowed to promote compulsory membership from their office – this was a mandate obtained twice previously from a campus wide vote when the union was compulsory. They also started a number of lies and chinese whispers that remain as urban legends today.
Vote:April 25th, 2009 at 12:39 am
Very interesting Matthew, looks like another attack on the freedoms of others by this particularly nasty group of people.
Vote:Of course if you are a Christian you clearly deserved it as you were probably being “difficult” as Toad said.
Care to comment Toadzilla?
April 25th, 2009 at 12:40 am
M & M
Well done, stand tall.
Vote:April 25th, 2009 at 12:46 am
Hey Madeline, thanks for your response
E: DPF, you need a less menacing smiley face.
Vote:April 25th, 2009 at 12:47 am
dog eat dog,
Actually many of the WSU’s buisnesses were in significant trouble well before the move to voluntary membership. The Student Campus Building Fund Trust for example which ran the cafes and various other services wen’t bankrupt in 1995, according to the VC this was due to political interference by the the student politicans at the time, and occurred before the pro VSMers came into power (which was 1996 and VSM did not come in till 1998). Similarly the financial woes of the student newspaper went back to this time (1995) when it faced multiple lawsuits for defamation and had to be cut adrift to protect the student union from liability. Similarly, Contact’s woes were due to debts racked up prior to the voluntary period. VSM was simply a scap goat used by NZUSA to promote their cause.
As to figures the Student union membership fluctuated up and down during the voluntary period. 40 was the lowest figure it ever reached. After this low its membership numbers began to rise so that by the end of 2000 just before the referendia that returned compulsory membership its membership was 3000 around 1 third of all students enrolled at Waikato.
Labour and NZUSA repeatedly lied about the figures. In 1998 when membership was 1000 NZUSA repeatedly stated to the media it was below 700 and Labour MP’s stated in the house it was struggling to reach double figures. In fact in 2000 Steve Maherey claimed in Cracuum falsely that 1000,000 of assets in trust had been whittled away, the WSU records show no such trusts even existed and the fixed assets remained stable over the period. As Madeleine has noted many of the claims by the WSU about financial losses were subject to defamation challenges, each time the challenge has been made they have backed off.
Vote:April 25th, 2009 at 12:51 am
Cheers Matt, I’m well aware of the tensions between student unions and organisations affiliated to them. NZUSA is a curious beast.
Vote:April 25th, 2009 at 1:22 am
Sorry when I said that 40 was the lowest I mean’t to say around 140. I don’t have the exact figures but thats roughly the number both Madeleine and I remember.
Vote:April 25th, 2009 at 1:24 am
BTW I have never had an abortion.
Vote:April 25th, 2009 at 1:30 am
“If, for the sake of argument, this woman were a radical Islamic student calling for the beheading of Kiwi infidels, who would have the courage to take her on? I suggest most of us would be anonymously blustering behind barricades and refraining from publishing “cartoons.” Instead, this person is “easy meat” and allows blow-hards to “get stuck-in” without fear of repercussion. Am I wrong?”
Yes, you would be.
Vote:April 25th, 2009 at 8:10 am
Redbaiter: “Things have changed greatly in the last few months. You need to know that the Communists are gathering their forces for a massive assault on our liberty.”
Holy crap! [ looks under the bed ]
Where are they? Tell me where they are!! Where are these communists?
Better un-mothball those LAVs chaps.
Vote:April 25th, 2009 at 8:26 am
I too struggle with this one – freedom of speech etc. While I am all for freedom of speech, tolerance and non-violence – is there not a case to make for not inflicting emotional violence on others? Clearly emotional harm is intended towards the brave generation who fought defending freedom – hence the deliberately offensive choice of the flag and day. If I my mind is being fucked with, do I not have a right to defend myself? As an example, let’s say I hate speeding and drunk drivers. If every time I came across one of them smashed up on the road and did a jig in front of them celebrating their demise while the survivors (if any) lay in a daze – am I truly free to do that? Should they just turn the other cheek?
James?
Vote:Paul Williams?
Rebel Heart?
April 25th, 2009 at 8:42 am
These would be the same communists who were fighting facism in Spain while redbaiter’s ilk were arming the facists, trading with the facists and profiting from the death and misery of war.
Vote:April 25th, 2009 at 9:06 am
Of all political points of view, the Libertarian one is probably the closest one I can adhere to. Until they start their one-eyed arguments usually cloaked in pseudo intellectualism. James is happy to call things “non concepts” yet he adheres to property rights. I believe in property rights as well, but many others do not. And according to your arguments James, the fact that property rights is something YOU believe in means you cannot enforce that belief on others. Your arguments that offense is not given it is subjective is no different than the concept of owning property. Some-one some-where decided that it was a good idea. (I agree whole heartedly) If you are going to insist on some-one’s rights (which in itself is a crock. Rights is such a stupid concept because all rights seem to disappear that second before the bus hits you) then you also have to insist on the other persons right to beat the living crap out of them for doing it. Responses is simply relative. In a bikie gang for instants a fist to the side of the head is “Just a way of sorting something out” and would probably be forgotten in seconds, while in some societies a harsh word has driven people to take their own life. Unfortunately James like all Libertarians, you are defeated by your own ideology. The minute you draw a line (ie personal space, property rights, freedom,) you actually are just arguing about degrees, and degrees are arbitrary and subjective.
Vote:April 25th, 2009 at 9:17 am
And then my heart soars when I see lefties like borker.. I realize that the world still exists because natural selection allows the weaker and more feeble of mind to have limited impact. Oh hail the glorious chinese soldier who drove his tanks over the protesters because there was no money involved. No capitalism to turn this death into something ugly.
And Ryan, How is spending money on telling people they can opt out, different than spending money on getting them to opt in?
Forcing people to belong to a student union is simply the single most ridiculous notion. It is keeping something alive artificially, that would die a natural death when left alone. Jobs for the girls really.
Vote:April 25th, 2009 at 9:18 am
And now I am off to go and take part in a great Australian celebration. Playing 2 up in the pub on Anzac day.
Vote:April 25th, 2009 at 9:33 am
Massive resources WTF ? How much effort would it take to put a tickbox on the uni registration form ?
Vote:April 25th, 2009 at 10:14 am
Bok that’s a excellent tradition. Nice to honour the old diggers by doing something they would be doing themselves.
Vote:April 25th, 2009 at 10:58 am
apologies Madeleine – that statement was unfair and impulsive, and I immediately tried to delete it but didn’t seem able to. If you are able to, DPF, I think that would be a good idea.
I was simply a mere reader of magazines I picked up in cafes around the turn of the century, and watched with interest as the entire madness was played out. I shouldn’t have made assumptions that everything I read there was true – I guess you sometimes think that if they dare to print it, then they must be able to back it up, but I guess that isn’t always the case. You’re right – that entire period of Waikato University’s history did move into urban legend and it would be interesting to know what really was true and what wasn’t.
Apologies again.
Vote:April 25th, 2009 at 11:38 am
Madeline – that’s a fascinating claim about the WSU membership figures circa 2000. You had 2K voluntary members? Where might I check this information?
Vote:April 25th, 2009 at 11:47 am
Every dealing I have had with NZUSA and various pro compulsory membes of WSU, AUSA, OUSA and VUWSA and various polytechnics has pretty much been an unpleasant one. I wouldn’t put it past them to sink to the types of behaviour as they engaged in against Madeline and Matt again. SA’s tend to play the person an awful lot and seek to destroy anybodys credibility. I have been threatened by association members for supporting VSM and had 2 student newspapers engage in a nasty campaign against me simply for being pro voluntary and an ACT member.
It’s simple really – why should any student be forced to join. There is no grey area, or wishy washy opting in or out. Does the AA complain for having to advertise for members? Why do young, extremely easily influenced kids get to be in charge of millions of dollars of students money for something they don’t even have to earn?
Vote:April 25th, 2009 at 11:48 am
bananapants
Good on you for apologising. Two myths about WSU.
1. Under voluntary membership WSU “entirely went to pieces”
WSU was voluntary for 3 years, from 1998-2000. In 2007 (the year prior to the three period of voluntary membership) WSU equity was $605,000. By the end of the voluntary period (2000) equity dropped to $575,000 – a drop of $30,000. In the first year of reinstated compulsory membership, equity increased to $919,000 due to the massive injection of compulsory funds. However over the next three years of compulsory membreship equity fell: 2002 ($413,000), 2003 ($169,000), 2004 ($248,000). It has crept back up and was $686,000 in 2006.
So there was minimal change to WSU equity during the voluntary period compared with the far greater reductiions that occurred during the post voluntary period. Voluntary membership didn’t decimate WSU financially.
2 Voluntary WSU only had 40 members.
“The [WSU] made about $30,000 from its 3000 members’ fees this year, [WSU vice president] Mecina Stanbury said.” – Waikato Times, 25 August 2000. WSU was voluntary in 2000. Stanbury was a supporter of compulsory membership.
But the larger point remains – students will join an organisation if they think it’s in their interests. There’s no justification for forcing them to join. Supporters of compulsory membership know very few students would voluntarily join associations in their current form. That’s why they want the continution of compulsion.
Vote:April 25th, 2009 at 11:49 am
Well, it didn’t happen. You might like to check your sources, DPF. Or perhaps the sheer attention this post caused had put her off.
Vote:April 25th, 2009 at 11:51 am
“Where are these communists?”
Haha.. that’s funny. Petal asking that is like a sheep asking where the wool is.
Vote:April 25th, 2009 at 11:53 am
Your statement was also false and it was not pleasant last night having to re-live what I went through when I lost my daughter and had her death used as political fodder.
If you have been around student magazines you should know that they will publish anything and that they do not need sources or facts to back things up. They have an endless supply of compulsorily extracted money to pay for defamation settlements and the editors are protected by the corporate veil.
Initially I asked David to remove your comments on the grounds that there were defamatory on three counts but then I sent him a second email saying I preferred them to stand so that everyone could see your statement contrasted with the truth.
These false rumours have dogged me and Matt for years and they are lies with no basis in fact or reality. Lies told to further student political careers, to retain compulsory membership of student unions and to protect the left wing powerbase that these provide.
We knew enough about student politics to ensure we kept records, copies of audited accounts from our year, which we still have and which we can produce. The WSU’s copies of the originals “disappeared” when they were asked to back up their claims. That should speak volumes.
Thankyou for apologising. I accept your apology. Please cease and desist from making these statements.
Vote:April 25th, 2009 at 11:53 am
It was never going to happen. VUWSA made a (retarded) decision not to lay a wreath for entirely dubious reasons. It would appear that the flag-burning rumour came entirely from Kiwiblog rhetoric. Nice one, DPF.
Madeline, I realise you might not have read my first post yet, but could you please tell me where I could find the WSU membership figures you claim for the latter half of 2000?
Vote:April 25th, 2009 at 11:55 am
“apologies Madeleine – that statement was unfair and impulsive,”
Not good enough. IMHO an aopology doesn’t cut it. Again IMHO, you’ve marked yourself as a cowardly smearer for ever. Matthew and Madeline’s courage stands in stark contrast to your vicious lower than a snake’s arsehole mentality.
Vote:April 25th, 2009 at 12:36 pm
Bloody hell.
Quickly then I’m off. First, Madeleine, I’m sorry you’re subjected to any criticism or comment about your miscarriage. That’s inexcusable, totally and completely inexcusable. I didn’t know any of this and am sorry for your loss.
Secondly, the WSU was not in financial trouble in ’95, nor was it in ’94 (nor ’93 or ’92 but I was less involved). Nor was the SCBTF. I was a trustee for many years and know the financial situation well. There were disagreements about what was on and off-balance sheet and the Uni took one position and the association another but to say the finances were a mess because of political interference, as Matthew did, is simply wrong. That said, I did personally and consistently insist that coffee remain one dollar and refillable for two years – I understand that was expensive but what the hey…
The Saints won, if anyone’s interested, flogged Adelaide… ‘jus say’n.
Vote:April 25th, 2009 at 12:46 pm
dmz (2) the WSU should have membership figures in their files, there should also exist media reports, outside student media from the time.
I should elaborate some more.
The first year of voluntary membership at Waikato was 1998 Jo Muller was President; Matt was President in 1999 (my year); Pita Cammock was President in 2000, the last year of voluntary membership.
My understanding is that the campaign our executive handed the 2000 executive to run netted 20% campus membership. I heard this number from the 2000 President himself, in the media and in discussions I had with board members of various campus companies. Further, the Vice-Chancellor’s office had been trying to evict the WSU from its offices on the grounds that the number of members were no different to any other campus club and in my year the Vice-Chancellor had told me that if we crossed the 20% mark they would back off and view the WSU as being a sufficiently powerful voice. In 2000 the University dropped its push to evict the WSU, I recall the membership number being cited as a reason. For these reasons I believe the reports were accurate.
Some relevant background on how the WSU worked (at least then). As you probably know, those running the student union are elected and each serve 1 term. The President and Vice-President’s term runs the full year, they take office on 1 January and spend the first few months settling in and learning the ropes then the rest of the executive come into office in March at the point students arrive on campus. The membership drive, planned by the previous executive, is then actioned by the executive, the VP and Pres are usually flat out running the daily affairs of the association and cannot be out manning stalls. Preparing and developing a membership package takes a lot of time and effort so it is not possible for this to be done by the new executive in the short space of time they have or by the VP and Pres singlehandedly, they have to rely on the previous year’s efforts.
The executive before us had several resignations that were not filled and the exec did not pull their weight on organising the membership programme for us to implement on our arrival. Everything ended up falling on the 1998 Pres and VP and, if you know anything about how full on those roles are, organising a membership drive on top of the workload is not feasible, it was the slack exec members of that year that this dereliction should fall on. Neverthelss the Pres and VP did what they could but we didn’t have much to work with. If I recall correctly that exec had set the levy at $35 for our year and we had a pile of T-Shirts to give away that said “wotcha doing in 1998?” (it was 1999). No advertising had been organised, the University had been very difficult to deal with and were very resistant towards doing anything to help by way of access to enrolment packs and we were shut out of orientation (back then this was organised by a company called CSL – this had been the case for some years, well before voluntary membership came in.)
I had begun the 1999 year as Women’s Rights Officer so I did not come into the office until March with the rest of the executive and we were sent out to drum up membership – it was difficult. Later in the year after the VP resigned, I stood for the position and was elected Vice-President. We had been trying to streamline the roles so I immediately began working on the membership package for the next executive and I formed a team of exec members and volunteers and I also worked really hard on communicating with students about what we could do for them and what we were doing.
We successfully negotiated promotional material to go into every Uni student’s enrolment pack, we had to agree to stuff the packs ourselves but it was worth it. We also negotiated a role in orientation than we had been given for our own campaign.
We then began working on the membership package itself. We slashed the fee to $10, students were never going to pay the previous $90+ fee if they had a choice afterall, even the $35 fee was a bit steep too. We figured if the WSU streamlined itself and focussed only on legitimate student services and advocacy, then combined with its income from its companies and investments it could survive as a leaner machine – million dollar budgets for student associations are excessive.
I began contacting every company I could think of that might have an interest in the student market and offered them advertising and invited them to supply samples of their products, discounts, vouchers, etc. I focussed on things students were into and the sorts of things that all help the student budget. There was a lot of interest and we got some good names on board – from memory they contained a T-shirt sponsored by the Hillcrest Tavern, a can of coke, a packet of diamond rice risotto, other food items – I forget what now – vouchers for DVD and video hire and other entertainment items – definately all worth more than the $10 it cost to join the WSU – which was my aim.
I also worked on securing advertising space on student radio, in the media and worked on poster designs. I had offered my services to the incoming exec to help get things set up so they could hit the ground running, offering to work for free for Jan and Feb but as it was some of them that were behind the miscarriage hate mail and abuse it took everything in me to see out my term and when Matt and I walked out on 31 Dec 1999 we shook the dust off our feet and never returned. We cared about the students, we wanted to see the WSU thrive under voluntary but the people we handed over to we had utterly lost respect for. We had discharged our role, we had no obligation to go above and beyond in the face of how they had treated us.
Vote:April 25th, 2009 at 1:07 pm
Thanks Paul. It was the worst abuse I have ever endured (and you know some of my personal history), it began literally within weeks of me leaving hospital.
I don’t dispute you were a good President. However the WSU was in trouble well before voluntary membership. The student businessess had to be stripped off and put into separate companies, Campus Services Limited was formed and took over orientation and the student gym, cafes and bars and other services. The need for all these things to happen arose before the first Student Choice executive came to office in 1996, these things were caused by the actions and management of pro-compulsory executives, not by anyone that had anything to do with implementing voluntary membership.
The vice-chancellor, Bryan Gould, told us that CSL had to be set up because under previous administrations political interference in the running of the cafeterias, etc. had forced the previous board into massive debt. It was not a pro-VSM executive that oversaw the students voting to set cafe prices.
This was more your time than mine so maybe you can explain why this happened but it surely cannot all fall on the infamous 1995 Ashby executive (pro-compulsory) and it most definitely did not happen because of pro-voluntary executive mismanagement.
You can’t shed any light on the lap-top rumour? Another of the lies that gets told about me and Matt is along with the $20-$100,000 we stole we also stole 20-40 laptops from the WSU (the numbers change depending on who is telling the story). The WSU never even had laptops to my knowledge.
Vote:April 25th, 2009 at 1:29 pm
Madeleine, I don’t remember the establishment of CSL, it was after my time.
The SBCFT however was around since the establishment of the Uni and was in rude good health. Sufficient to build the new student facilities. The trading parts of the Trust had good and bad years but there was limited potential for interference by either the Uni or SA as both shared oversight and the management was contracted-out (but they bowed to my whimisical insistence about the coffee). I recall that there was an insurance issue in 1994 that led to a review and the establishment of a new vehicle but that’s all the detail I remember. But just to be absolutely clear, the Trust, the trading bodies and the Association were in perfectly unremarkable financial health in 1994 and the few years before – I’d be surprised if Bryan commented otherwise, he wasn’t particularly involved though Registrars were. The Travel business was always marginal. I don’t think it should ever have been set up but it was way before my time. I was happy when it was sold though I remember thinking the way it was handled was stupid – I said as such too.
Anyway, it’s 15 years ago now and apart from you, Matt and me, I don’t know that anyone else cares much about the detail, it’s the symbolic stuff they’re on about… and no, I know nothing about laptops, I was long gone when you were involved (and not working in the sector either).
Vote:April 25th, 2009 at 1:35 pm
Compulsory student associations are notorious for running commercial activities at a loss. It’s understandable – hey, if you screw it up you can always get more money from students next year.
Here are two examples of compulsory association mismanagement of catering:
“After suffering sustained financial losses over several years the union catering operation became the subject of an SGM in March 1980. Those attending voted to set up a limited liability company to run this side of the association’s (VUWSA) business….Despite this, however, the catering venture lost large amounts of money. By 1985 over $70,000 was owed to creditors.”
A Radical Tradition: A history of the VUWSA 1899-1999 (pages 182-183)
“Waikato University has brought in commercial caterers for its student cafeterias and halls after losing $149,000 last year. The student union services management board, which supervises the operation, still has a further $171,000 debt incurred over several years before 1992. The board, consisting of student union representatives and university hierarchy, including the vice-chancellor and finance registrar, brought in the Company Catering Company in a bid to trade out of the debt.”
This Week (supplement of the NZ Herald) 19 March, 1993
There are plenty more examples.
Funny how compulsion supporters use alleged failures at Waikato of evidence of why voluntary membership doesn’t work but they ignore the scores of examples of actual failure at compulsory associations. Or is mismanagement, waste and fraud at compulsory associations ‘just one of things and it’s time we all moved on’?
Did I hear someone mention $22,222 spent on the VUWSA van???
Vote:April 25th, 2009 at 1:35 pm
Don’t know how I missed blockhead’s comments but I just saw them now. Thankyou blockhead.
Excellent point regarding the equity dropping dramatically since compulsory membership was reinstated at Waikato; case-in-point evidence about pro-compulsory execs not taking care with students money.
I stand corrected, the membership package organised under my management netted 3000 members, 30% of the campus, not the 2000/20% figure I stated above. (Matt did tell me 2000 was wrong, the correct number was 3000, but that was the number in my head and I preferred to err on the side of caution).
Vote:April 25th, 2009 at 1:48 pm
Blockhead wrote:
Really? Do tell.
I just this moment wondering about that. Do you know something about it?
Vote:April 25th, 2009 at 2:03 pm
If someone owns a flag they shoud be able to burn it, or anything else they want to do. Protection of private property rights is quite important, I feel.
“How long do we tolerate these vile subhuman knuckle draggers who abuse freedom in order to destroy freedom?”
The surest sign of a lack of intelligence is the inability to express an opinion without resorting to swearing and insults.
Vote:April 25th, 2009 at 2:17 pm
Interesting quote. Student reps, hey, well, that’s says it all. This doesn’t include mention that it was on the recommendation of the then University Finance Registrar that investments in cook-chill catering for Halls were made (late ’80s and early ’90s) which led to the large losses. It also doesn’t say that the decision to out-source management was led by the then Finance Officer and subsequent President of the Union, the late John Houston.
Blockhead, I appreciate you bringing this up and the Herald article is interesting, but it tells a very partial story.
Vote:April 25th, 2009 at 2:23 pm
It may tell a partial story and not reveal all the facts but it does confirm that these things had nothing whatsoever to do with Voluntary membership.
Vote:April 25th, 2009 at 2:31 pm
Madeleine, I thought you were arguing that the SA was a mess which is why VSM was required? I might have misunderstood. Either way, there was no financial crisis in the early ’90s. I don’t know what was going on after about ’95 however I’d be surprised if things got badly out of order.
My understanding is that the WSU finances were badly affected by going voluntary and particularly the decision made around the formation of CSL which meant forgoing what was student equity in the former SCBFT. I remember discussing this with the then presidents and being surprised that they felt they had no choice following the review that I’d agreed to. I thought it naive at best, convenient at worse…
Is it sunny were you are? It’s a bit rainy in Sydney but I know I shouldn’t be arguing about stuff that happened last decade… lets just agree that the VSM debate’s over.
Vote:April 25th, 2009 at 2:47 pm
Voluntary membership was required because compulsory membership violates freedom of association.
The WSU could have been a shining commercial success and I would still have supported VSM because no one should have to fund or join a political association to obtain an education.
My pointing to the financial issues pre-VSM’s implementation was to point out the falsity of the claim that VSM caused these financial problems. It should not be taken as a justifcation as to why VSM was needed.
No it is not sunny here. It is grey, overcast, a little windy and rainy. It is also a little cool for my liking.
Vote:April 25th, 2009 at 2:52 pm
Ok, we can agree to disagree at this point. I hope the weather improves, I’m planning on a marathon footy/rugby session on the tele (if only I can convince my youngest to turn off Pink… I can’t listen to anymore…)
Vote:April 25th, 2009 at 3:00 pm
# Bok (466) Vote: Add rating 1 Subtract rating 1 Says:
April 25th, 2009 at 9:06 am
“Of all political points of view, the Libertarian one is probably the closest one I can adhere to. Until they start their one-eyed arguments usually cloaked in pseudo intellectualism. James is happy to call things “non concepts” yet he adheres to property rights. I believe in property rights as well, but many others do not. And according to your arguments James, the fact that property rights is something YOU believe in means you cannot enforce that belief on others. Your arguments that offense is not given it is subjective is no different than the concept of owning property. Some-one some-where decided that it was a good idea. (I agree whole heartedly) If you are going to insist on some-one’s rights (which in itself is a crock. Rights is such a stupid concept because all rights seem to disappear that second before the bus hits you) then you also have to insist on the other persons right to beat the living crap out of them for doing it. Responses is simply relative. In a bikie gang for instants a fist to the side of the head is “Just a way of sorting something out” and would probably be forgotten in seconds, while in some societies a harsh word has driven people to take their own life. Unfortunately James like all Libertarians, you are defeated by your own ideology. The minute you draw a line (ie personal space, property rights, freedom,) you actually are just arguing about degrees, and degrees are arbitrary and subjective.”
Bok…this is incoherent drivel…please go learn something about what you are posting, re phrase it so its coherent and I’ll answer asap.
Vote:April 25th, 2009 at 3:04 pm
Not while there is no Act of parliament ending both compulsory membership and compulsory funding of student associations.
Pink…. *ugh* the things parents endure for the sake of their children! It is pretty much a write off day for us too. My daughter was going to ride her horse but he gets in touch with his Arab breeding in weather like this and last time he did that he broke her arm.
I really should head to the law library and take advantage of the fact that everyone else won’t be there and the texts I need might actually be on the shelves – I hate research assignments that require me to use real books, database research is much quicker.
Vote:April 25th, 2009 at 3:08 pm
Pink’s tolerable, the Fairies are not. Horse riding in the inner West of Sydney is not an option (fortunately).
Hey, does anyone know if the VUWSA president did or did not burn the flag. I sincerely hope she didn’t, it’d be stupid.
Vote:April 25th, 2009 at 3:10 pm
Compulsory student union membership should be scrapped. Somehow I feel Labour-lite won’t be doing anything about it though.
Vote:April 25th, 2009 at 3:12 pm
OECD and Madeleine, my recollection is that Labour passed a sensible law requiring SAs to have standardised referenda devices for members to avail themselves of. I know it’s not what everyone wants but it’s a very accessible solution.
Vote:April 25th, 2009 at 3:15 pm
I think someone said she didn’t do it afterall. Scroll up a bit. David should give us an official update.
Vote:April 25th, 2009 at 3:20 pm
Cheers. It would have been a very very bad protest.
Vote:April 25th, 2009 at 3:43 pm
Paul Williams
At that stage I was laughing my ass off. Come on, Labour were incapable of any such thing and the only sensible law for student associations is voluntary membership.
Vote:April 25th, 2009 at 4:02 pm
Here’s the latest episode in the story about how former President Geoff Hayward decided to spend over $22,000 to upgrade VUWSA’s van, with the support of then Education Vice-President Paul Brown. Although they did this without the proper authority, the payment could not be reversed and VUWSA was stuck with the bill.
The 2008 executive then prepared a document looking at ways to deal with the expenditure. One option considered was that Vuwsa should “do nothing and hope that no one ever finds out that the constitution was not complied with.”
http://www.salient.org.nz/news/vile-vuwsa-van-veil-vanishing-vanquished-verily
Perhaps wasting money on a van is one of the ‘services’ Vuwsa provides to students.
Tell me again why there’s nothing wrong with the current law.
Vote:April 25th, 2009 at 4:56 pm
Fundamentally you don’t vote on whether you uphold freedom of conscience and association or forced membership and funding of political organisations. Any law that states that human rights are optional unless the majority vote to uphold them is not a “sensible law.”
This so called “sensible law” requires a group of students to take time out of their studies obtain a massive quantity of signatures and then campaign for and win a campus wide vote.
The student associations, with budgets of the amount Blockhead pointed will run the counter campaign. Lets not forget that they usually control the campus media and noticeboards and they do not have a habit of exercising that control ethically – recall where Bananapants got his erroneous info about me?
They will do anything to win, to regain control of the money and power to restrict information and to push left wing agendas onto students. Those who control the campus, contol the ideas the next generation embraces. The left will not let go of their stranglehold willingly. Concepts like freedom of speech and diversity of opinion are things they play lip service to. It still flabergasts me that there are those within the Nats and ACT party who don’t get it.
If you think how I was treated was anything new or special, think again. Matt and I were not the first, we most certainly will not be the last and they treated and continue to treat everyone like that who they viewed or view as a credible threat to their power. This is not an issue that is 15 years old, Matt and I were most recently abused in an appalling manner by a students association at Otago university only a few years ago – see Matt’s blog entry where he glosses over and documents some of it Studying at Otago University no Riot .
Like clintheine said, when he documented his own abuse, student politicians think nothing of playing the person and seek to destroy anybodys credibility. I can document so much abuse of a range of people on a range of campuses it would make your hair curl to think that this had happened in New Zealand in recent years and is still happening today and worse that this government, the wonderful John Key lead government that everyone is so in love with, is doing nothing at all about it.
Then there is the money they waste, we are in a recession, students are broke, forcing them to fund left wing agendas and re-education programs to the tune of millions every year to tell them all how terrible anything other than labour/green/prgressive/marxist policy is is insane.
But ultimately, compulsory membership is just plain wrong.
Vote:April 25th, 2009 at 5:22 pm
Madeleine
This is not an issue that is 15 years old, it’s older than that. 30 years ago the same issue was going on. The fight between voluntary membership and left wing driven compulsion has been going on forever. The universities are the last bastion of left wing indoctrination and I completely agree with you when you say ‘It still flabergasts me that there are those within the Nats and ACT party who don’t get it.’.
Vote:April 26th, 2009 at 11:53 am
James others seem to have been able to understand. The inability to argue your case without just pulling the phrase “it’s driveL” out of your butt shows that you actually know less about your ideology than you even are aware of. If others can understand, maybe you are the one who should go and learn. As I said I am actually closer to a Libertarian than most, but I also see the inconsistencies. Wannabe libertarians who just blindly hold the party line is as stupid as any other political supporter who does not question their own political beliefs. So back to school son. Go and chat to the likes of Peter Creswell or Lindsay Perigo and learn a bit more before you just blindly barge forth.
Vote:April 27th, 2009 at 2:00 pm
Bok….your post was drivel….poorly written and incoherent.Im am not a member of Libertarianz….you don’t have to be to be a Libertarian…indeed it actually helps if you aren’t.
What are these “inconsistencies” that you claim to see in Libertarianism? I’ll wager they are strawmen or bogus premises that you are either ignorant of or deliberatly misconstruing.
Come on son ….stump up and lets get it on.
Vote:April 28th, 2009 at 10:49 pm
No flags were burned but VUWSA’s executive still managed to spit in the face of those who wanted to commemorate the fallen.
Vote:See http://www.salient.org.nz/blog/vuwsa-anzac-wreath-would-support-war
(and I think you might have your say there too)