A simple fact check
Today’s Dom Post Press editorial is on referenda wording, but that is not the focus of this post. Their editorial says:
Regrettably, although the Clerk of the House of Representatives has responsibility for overseeing the wording of referendums, his powers are limited. He must ensure only that the question clearly conveys the purpose and effect of the referendum and he must ensure that only one of two answers can be given to it. In this case those criteria are met. In future, however, if referendums are not going to be done away with entirely, some thought must be given to tightening the procedure for their wording.
The Dominion Post, of all newspapers, Press should be aware the Clerk is a she, not a he. And even if they did not, it would take ten seconds to check that Mary Harris is the Clerk.
UPDATE: Teach me to be pedantic – I got the newspaper wrong. It was not the Dom Post, but The Press.
June 18th, 2009 at 1:06 pm
Thats cos journo’s nowadays just know how to copy and paste press releases. They dont know how to fact find.
June 18th, 2009 at 1:07 pm
I do hope you have some more astute observations to follow…?
June 18th, 2009 at 1:10 pm
Nit picking, who cares.
You really got nothing better to worry about in regards to NZ journalists? I could give you a list.
June 18th, 2009 at 1:21 pm
Obviously the word has gone out from the left to all of their media friends-
Spread the propaganda that the question is confusing.
(But make it look like you’re not. We’re still feeling a bit too much heat over your attacks on Melissa)
The question, whatever the wording, is really this-
“Do you want socialist stooges like Sue Bradfford intefering in and running your life??”
Yes or No??
June 18th, 2009 at 1:23 pm
The question is not “confusing”.
The wording (especially “good”, as in “good parental correction”) does not really reflect anything in Section 59, and IMO it appears to have been drafted purposefully in order to attract an outraged response of “Hell No! How dare the government tell me how to raise my children!”
Given the possible answers to the question, I believe the best way to prevent this cynical piece of activism from influencing real government policy is to abstain from voting, as a low voter turnout deprives the result of meaning.
June 18th, 2009 at 1:24 pm
Actually the question should be is Sue Bradford fit to raise your children for you? Her track record indicates not so much.
June 18th, 2009 at 1:32 pm
Murray, shouldn’t the question be something like the following?
“The Crimes Act states that assault is an offence in New Zealand.
However, Section 59 of the Crimes Act states that under several circumstances a parent smacking their child is not an offence.
Here is Section 59 of the Crimes act: […………] Do you agree with Subsection 2 of Section 59? Yes or No.”
(I guess it is too late for this discussion now, as the question was set in stone from the Clerk’s approval onward. So we are stuck with a loaded question that incites an emotional response, rather than something people could consider rationally. Hence I will not be voting… )
June 18th, 2009 at 1:36 pm
I heard larry Baldock saying that it was the previous Clerk who was instrumental in considering the wording for the Petition which had to then carry over to the Referendum. What was that BLOKE’S name again?
June 18th, 2009 at 1:42 pm
Rat, its a shit load of dicking about for a law that either doesn’t function at all or criminalises ordinary parents. Depending on which question Bradford is answering.
How abour “Should New Zealand taxpyers be subject to poorly written legislation”? We’ve seen more than our share of it recently and this government is doing nothing to change that.
The training wheels need to go back on all of them till they learn how to do the damn job.
June 18th, 2009 at 1:51 pm
DPF, good point, but while we are on the subject of fact checking, your link is a Press editorial, and it is “its” editorial not “their” editorial. Never mind, good spotting on the he/she.
June 18th, 2009 at 1:53 pm
And its Anal Daves Day here at kiwiblog. Which Dave will will out nit pick the other, who can say?
June 18th, 2009 at 1:57 pm
That should be Anal Dave’s Day, Murray. Please, is it too much to expect some half decent grammar?
June 18th, 2009 at 2:51 pm
Auberon,
I think you may have missed the other omitted apostrophe in Murray’s comment. Ha! Didn’t see that, did you…
June 18th, 2009 at 2:54 pm
Good on you for keeping this post despite pointing out a mistake in the wrong paper. Many others would have quickly hit the delete button while whistling and pretended the whole thing was just a figment of their immagination.
June 18th, 2009 at 3:03 pm
“That should be Anal Dave’s Day, Murray. Please, is it too much to expect some half decent grammar?”
Not necessarily. Your spelling would suggest there is only one Anal Dave. Perhaps Murray meant “Anal Daves” as a plural, like Presidents Day in the US?
June 18th, 2009 at 3:57 pm
bear, its Presidents’ Day.
June 18th, 2009 at 4:07 pm
Congratulations dave, you ARE the most anal link!
Meritous mention to Auberon and bearhunter (even though his name seems to have escaped ANY kind of good English test).
June 19th, 2009 at 7:57 am
MNIJ: Not according to the AP style guide, but never mind.
Murray: Aw, shucks. By the way, it’s not a name, it’s a description.
June 19th, 2009 at 7:59 am
Maybe the press is starting to use legalese… “He” in legislation means a person, not a male person. I don’t think it though. Bad journo research me thinks instead.
June 19th, 2009 at 9:45 am
Then its a description that also has evaded any conformity to good English.
June 19th, 2009 at 7:17 pm
Super pedantry: the English word “clerk” is descended from the Latin word “clericus” (cleric or clergyman), which in the Middle Ages came to refer to the guy who handled important papers at court — the clergymen were the only people who could read. The Latin “clericus” is of the masculine gender; “clergyMAN”, well, that’s obvious; and the word clerk refers to a position that could only possibly be held by a man, since women in the Middle Ages couldn’t be ordained.
June 22nd, 2009 at 11:30 pm
Apostrophe’s are so last year darlink.
Haven’t you seen Bruno yet?