This entry was posted
on Friday, March 26th, 2010 at 9:13 am and is filed under Uncategorized.
You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.
You can skip to the end and leave a response. Pinging is currently not allowed.
Despite the extensive and grave allegations against Murphy, Ratzinger’s deputy at the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith ruled that the alleged molestation had occurred too long ago and that Murphy — then ailing and elderly — should instead repent and be restricted from celebrating Mass outside of his diocese.
The official, Cardinal Bertone — now the Vatican’s secretary of state — ordered the church trial halted after Murphy wrote Ratzinger a letter saying he was ill, infirm, and “simply want to live out the time that I have left in the dignity of my priesthood.”
He had been accused of soliciting sex in the confessional, one of the gravest sins in canon law.
Weakland informed Bertone that Murphy had no sense of remorse and didn’t seem to realize the gravity of what he had done, according to a Vatican summary of the meeting. But Bertone insisted that there weren’t “sufficient elements to institute a canonical process” against Murphy because so much time had already passed.
This is why increasing numbers in the educated world have problems with many religious groups – if it’s one of their own they just need to “be sorry”, repent and live “in dignity”, but if it’s someone on the outside they should be burnt on the stake and eternally burn in hell.
To return to a topic first started yesterday, (‘Labour and Mining’) a serious question aimed specifically at Toad (or local NZ ‘Green-party representative)
Toad: Can you please explain why the Greens kept extremely silent about Labour’s mining in Schedule 4 Conservation land yet now yell and scream when National indicate that they are ‘Considering’ the possibility of doing a small amount iof underground mining in a Schedule 4 area – and please don’t duck behind the ‘I’m not a leader so I woudn’t know’ excuse – you have been presenting yourself as being exthwemely well-informed about your party’s policies.
Over to you Toad, and please, a serious, considered, coherent reply.
The fucking newspaers made him smash a guy in the head witt a softball bat?????
Jesus is there no limit to left wing fuckwitttery.
Timeline, he went to prison and got media coverage AFTER he chose all by himself to set up, ambush and kill a guy for a couple of pizzas and some small change. His mother seems to be against this short of thing given her comment that she’d like to blow him away.
Cram your collective guilt crap. He is what he chose to be.
No, the “fucking newspaers” didn’t contribute until after he was charged – and he didn’t hit anyone with a bat.
He didn’t chose his family.
He did choose his de facto “family” of friends who carried him along and helped him get into the shit, and get into prison.
If the media had left him alone when he got out he may be as bad as he is now, but he may have had more of a chance to get his shit together and do something decent with his life.
It doesn’t look like hugging is something he understands (that could go back to family, reinforced by his mother’s comment).
Good grief Labour and Radio NZ are looking like dickheads after Peter Sharples explained why and how is thinking on educational national standards changed since the beat up report this morning outlining his concerns back in January (see Radio NZ Morning Report after 7am for his explantion, seems reasonable to me).
But at 10am RNZ said his emails were given to them. By whom? Labour sympathisers or “leakers”?
Any connection with Kevin Hackarse of Forest & Bird getting some “leaked” cabinet documents on mining and any connection with back in 2005 when H1, Winnie and other assorted Labour types pre-warning of damaging “leaked” emailsof Don Brasj about to be published into a “telephone book” that were passed onto Nicky Hager to write his book about etc?
A decent proportion of government jobs on Seek requesting backgrounds in climate change and/or sustainabilty. Discuss.
Lazybum: publicity for whichever organisation’s idea/promotion it is. Popular because it allows people to make a token gesture and feel satisfied they’ve done something without actually having to do anything of note that would require hardship, change of behaviour/s and/or effort. (Note: while I am ambivalent about climate change/don’t really give a shit about it, I see trying to conserve resources/use them more efficiently/be sustainable as a good thing in a world with scarce resources.)
Toad, speak up on the request as to why the “Watermelons” didnt piss and moan on Labours schedule 4 mining please, but now are pissing and moaning like true bitches?
One was doing a job and was ruthlessly and brutally murdered. The other acted as lookout for the crime and has hardly reformed since then and looks destined to be a burden on society for the rest of his miserable life.
A pity Kuariki was not a blow job (JB as he is named), we will pay for his existence for years to come. And he has a child on the way. More pressure on my wallet.
One was doing a job and was ruthlessly and brutally murdered. The other acted as lookout for the crime and has hardly reformed since then and looks destined to be a burden on society for the rest of his miserable life.
Bullshit Ryan. We all have different starts in life, but EVERY ONE OF US has choice. Those who make compounding bad choices that lead to a cycle of crime & punishment are not victims of anything other than their own poor choices.
Bullshit Ryan. We all have different starts in life, but EVERY ONE OF US has choice. Those who make compounding bad choices that lead to a cycle of crime & punishment are not victims of anything other than their own poor choices.
BJK [Bailey Junior Kurariki] – a product of family, prison and the media. Probably destined to keep living down to expectations.
Gee Pete, I’m surprised you weren’t able to somehow work in that “religious groups” were additionally responsible for BJK’s lifestyle choices – as per your opening comment at 9:21 am.
Speaking of which, do we sense a somewhat loaded first sentence in that comment:
This is why increasing numbers in the educated world have problems with many religious groups – if it’s one of their own they just need to “be sorry”, repent and live “in dignity”, but if it’s someone on the outside they should be burnt on the stake and eternally burn in hell.
So, the “educated world have problems with many religious groups” – and by inference, therefore, the uneducated (I know you really meant ‘thick’, but we’ll call them uneducated) are just cannon fodder for “religious groups”. And, of course, no thinking person could possibly follow a religion, or, for that matter, believe in God.
You like to ‘appear’ reasonable, Pete, but at every opportunity you try to denigrade, by inference, Christianity by tarring all followers of Christ with your current pet example – in this case a Roman Catholic Priest who is a homosexual pedophile, and those who covered up his crimes.
And, as I’ve said before, Roman Catholocism is not part of mainstream Christianity, but is rather a (the largest) Christian cult.
(Cult: a religion which adds to/replaces the finished works of Christ on the cross; generally a religion of works to gain ‘salvation’.)
In relation to Pita Sharples and Kura kaupa schools being included in a trial but not actually in the full scheme.
Mr Sharples also mentioned quite negative results from Hamilton East School re national standards from maori pupils. Results were not good apparently.
The simple question needs to be answered. Are the kura’s turning out well rounded students academically,socially and emotionally?
My quick guess is no. I bet you there is a lot of politically correct dance steps being played in these institutions. Things will be displayed as earth shattering but the story will be one of poor performance accompanied by the replaying of the Land Wars of the 19th centry..
The kura’s not
n appearance in national standards figures for another year is another effort by many in the maori communiuty to disguise the real problems in their society.
That the maori race have many unanswered social problems that many of those same people will not face.
Crime,unemployment,prisoners,academic standards remain elusive to many maoris’. Hiding them behind claptrap like heritage problems and rascism of the past will not help them.
The Honeymoon is coming to an end. Smiles only work for a while I guess.
Prime Minister John Key heckled in Levin
By VERNON SMALL
Last updated 11:17 26/03/2010
Prime Minister John Key was booed by a noisy crowd protesting plans to cut 24 beds from Horowhenua’s $16.1 million health centre during a trip to Levin this morning.
Mr Key, who was in the town to open the new District Court building, was confronted by about 150 people who stood across the road waving placards to protest the planned cuts, which would leave just four maternity beds at the centre and force other patients to travel to Palmerston North or Wellington for treatment.
One was doing a job and was ruthlessly and brutally murdered. The other acted as lookout for the crime and has hardly reformed since then and looks destined to be a burden on society for the rest of his miserable life.
An accurate description of the two victims, yes.
Good grief, Ryan!
When you use terms such as ‘victim’ to describe the likes of Kuariki, you are in fact excusing his behaviour by implying he has no personal resposibility for his actions.
No doubt you also think Bell, Burton, etc are just victims of circumstances not of their own making.
These pricks are just evil and, bottom line, still chose to murder, or be involved with the murder of, innocent strangers.
I believe some people are evil to the core and are therefore beyond redemption, and the only option is to put them down like we would a rabid dog.
In one we have someone who was accused of, found guilty and later acquitted if killing his dysfunctional family.
In another we have someone (and his mother) who people are calling scum and should be removed from society.
If someone shot JBK and his mother would they be a hero or a villain here?
“The simple question needs to be answered. Are the kura’s turning out well rounded students academically,socially and emotionally?”
My only experience is vicarious – 2 different friends looked into kura as options for their kids and both concluded that none of their local kura provided a safe learning environment. All their kids seem to be doing fine in mainstream publich schools.
I believe some people are evil to the core and are therefore beyond redemption, and the only option is to put them down like we would a rabid dog.
That reinforces my previous point.
Kris, I wasn’t just referring to your Christians in my first post. Uneducated religious groups are all sorts – prime examples in Afghanistan, Somalia, and Kenya (both Christian and Muslim).
If Kurariki had “found god” in prison (as some “scum” seem to do), and was now a regular committed churchgoer would a repent or two be ok or should he still be put down like a rabid dog?
Do you have a difference answer to the previous question if he was in your congregation compared to, say a Catholic congregation, or Muslim congregation?
Former Immigration Service boss fined $10,000
Former Immigration Service boss Mary Anne Thompson has been fined $10,000 and ordered to do community service for falsifying her CV by claiming she had a doctorate.
$10k?!? Pffft. How about she repays the people of New Zealand her fraudulently acquired salary?
When you use terms such as ‘victim’ to describe the likes of Kuariki, you are in fact excusing his behaviour by implying he has no personal resposibility for his actions.
No, I’m not.
No doubt you also think Bell, Burton, etc are just victims of circumstances not of their own making.
Obviously they are – or, more accurately, the way they’ve chosen to make their lives is a result of circumstances not of their own making.
These pricks are just evil and, bottom line, still chose to murder, or be involved with the murder of, innocent strangers.
I believe some people are evil to the core and are therefore beyond redemption, and the only option is to put them down like we would a rabid dog.
Do you go to a church that preaches that some people are beyond redemption?
@Ryan Sproull: he is a victim yes, but he is also a victimiser who ultimately made a terrible choice, but a choice it still was. The question now is whether he is rehabilitatable, and if so, is it worth rehabilitating him (cost of doing so versus benefit)?
“(Cult: a religion which adds to/replaces the finished works of Christ on the cross; generally a religion of works to gain ’salvation’.)”
@Kris K: That’s not a technical definition of “cult”. It’s a certain Christian interpretation of what they think a cult is with relation to their own interpretation of Christianity, so that they can tar other interpretations of Christianity with the brush of “cult”.
@krazykiwi: Did she do a good job on the whole? Yes, I realise there was controversy and stupidity at the end.
More of interest to me, however, is that in the USA, the Ponzi Scheme that is social security is to see the pay-out exceed its pay-in.
“Obviously they are – or, more accurately, the way they’ve chosen to make their lives is a result of circumstances not of their own making.”
@Ryan Sproull: Not everything is down to circumstance. The choices made in response to circumstance are a combination of inherent nature and external environment (Yes, one’s nature is informed by circumstance but one’s nature also determines how informed it is, and in what manner, by circumstance). The way they’ve chosen to make their lives is not just a result of circumstances not of their own making.
@Ryan Sproull: he is a victim yes, but he is also a victimiser who ultimately made a terrible choice, but a choice it still was. The question now is whether he is rehabilitatable, and if so, is it worth rehabilitating him (cost of doing so versus benefit)?
That may be the question for you, but most people seem to want revenge on him, rather than to seriously consider if rehabilitation is possible or worth the cost.
Toad, Toad, anyone seen Toad? ‘Oh Toad where-art thou, Toad’?
And why haven’t you answere my question Toad – you know, the one I posed at 0923 -( Or, if not my question, then certainly Wharfes’ one that he posted at 11.26).
We’re all waiting Toad – especially as you seem SO very ready to respond to everyone-else’s postings about the Nats’ and mining, yet are now conspicuously silent about your beloved Green’s and Labour’s hipocracy’s in granting mining rights in Conservations areas.
Come on old chap – play the game (since after all that’s what you demand of us).
We’re waiting . . .
(Oh, and its 13.23 on 26 March 2010 as I type this)
@Ryan Sproull: Not everything is down to circumstance. The choices made in response to circumstance are a combination of inherent nature and external environment. The way they’ve chosen to make their lives is not just a result of circumstances not of their own making.
“Inherent nature” and “external environment” are both unchosen.
Yes. I suppose the point I’m trying to make (badly) is that if you look at it like that, you effectively remove their responsibility for their actions, as they don’t determine their inherent nature or other external factors. Although I suppose responsibility and accountability are slightly different things, and even if you remove responsibility, you don’t necessarily deny that they should be held accountable (perhaps in the hope that their nature will change in response or that benefit seeking behaviour will kick in, provided their sense of costs/benefits is fairly in line with what actual costs/benefits are?).
Kris, I wasn’t just referring to your Christians in my first post. …
Yeah, righto Pete; if you say so.
If Kurariki had “found god” in prison (as some “scum” seem to do), and was now a regular committed churchgoer would a repent or two be ok or should he still be put down like a rabid dog?
While God may forgive repentant sinners, the past is the past, and there are consequences to our actions no matter how sorry we may be after the fact. And so while the state may exact justice by taking the individual’s life, if they have genuinely repented and received Christ as their Lord and Saviour, then God’s justice has been met through Christ’s death on the cross.
It is better to lose your physical life, but gain eternal life.
Yes. I suppose the point I’m trying to make (badly) is that if you look at it like that, you effectively remove their responsibility for their actions, as they don’t determine their inherent nature or other external factors.
It is debatable whether looking at it like that (or “acknowledging the facts”) removes their responsibility for their actions. I’d be interested to hear how you’d define “responsibility” in this context without using any synonyms for “responsibility”.
Although I suppose responsibility and accountability are slightly different things, and even if you remove responsibility, you don’t necessarily remove accountability (in the hope that their nature will change in response or that benefit seeking behaviour will kick in, provided their sense of costs/benefits is fairly in line with what actual costs/benefits are).
True. There’s always disincentive and protection of the community.
Kris, are you suggesting Kurariki should be executed?
If Hitler had been captured alive, and then genuinely repented and received Christ as his Lord and Saviour, and then was executed, would God’s justice have been met through Christ’s death on the cross?
Would he have lost his physical life and gained eternal life?
Is one responsible for something if they are forced to do it, or is whatever is doing the forcing responsible? In this case it seems what you’re saying is that his nature, which he did not choose, and his environment, which he did not choose, have forced him to do what he did. I suppose I am distinguishing between direct and indirect responsibility, however.
Obviously they are – or, more accurately, the way they’ve chosen to make their lives is a result of circumstances not of their own making.
So when does personal responsibility ‘kick in’, Ryan, or do we just keep on making excuses for these individuals for the rest of their lives? And everytime they commit another crime we encourage them to pull out the victim card, yet again.
Do you go to a church that preaches that some people are beyond redemption?
While Christ indeed died for the sins of ALL ‘men’, the reality is that many/most will not repent of their sin, and nor will they receive Christ as their Lord and Saviour – the Bible says as much.
And so I stand by my “many are beyond redemption” in that they refuse to repent and come to God on His terms.
Do you believe in EVIL, Ryan?
Do you believe that some ‘men’ are just plain evil? (I invoke Godwin’s Law here).
“That may be the question for you, but most people seem to want revenge on him, rather than to seriously consider if rehabilitation is possible or worth the cost.”
I don’t even give it a second thought. He’d be dead if I made the laws.
A lot more people would be dead sooner if more people made their own laws.
Jivekitty, other people are partly responsible for the person he has become and for some of the things he has done, but he is ultimately responsible for his own actions, especially now he is 21.
Kris, are you suggesting Kurariki should be executed?
If we had the death penalty on the statute books then that would be up to a jury to decide. But I imagine him being a minor at the time would be a consideration.
If Hitler had been captured alive, and then genuinely repented and received Christ as his Lord and Saviour, and then was executed, would God’s justice have been met through Christ’s death on the cross?
Would he have lost his physical life and gained eternal life?
If Hitler’s conversion had been genuine, then yes, God’s justice would have been met; Hitler would gain eternal life. Only God knows the hearts of men.
Christ died for ALL sins of ALL ‘men’ – no sin is too great which cannot be cleansed by Christ’s shed blood.
In essence, we are all guilty of Christ’s death – Christ had to die PHYSICALLY that we might not die SPIRITUALLY. That is, that we might have eternal life.
[NB Christ actually died SPIRITUALLY as well - when He was separated from God the Father WHILE He 'wore' our sin on the cross. Spiritual death is defined as separation from God.]
@Pete George: Yes, I hold the view that he is ultimately responsible.
@KiwiGreg: Hell yes, I do! I’m hoping trades of the comic will get a re-release though. I’ve heard some fans have been disappointed, so I’d like to be able to a comparison.
@Pete George: :O You forgot about the stain of mankind’s sin upon your soul, because we are automatically responsible for the actions everybody else has taken or will ever take, or so I hear. The worst sin was the first, gaining knowledge. For shame.
@JK I didnt even know it was a comic til after my wife sent me the link. Will have to look into. Actress playing Hit Girl seems superb but they had me at Nicolas Cage.
Draft press release leaked from the PM’s office that just happened to be left in a briefcase on a park bench (with the obligatory pie and Penthouse).
March 2010
In response to the verdict in the trial of the Waihopai Three, the government has decided that, in order to assure more uniformity of jury decisions, it will create a Ministry of Juries.
After the initial set up period, every jury empaneled in NZ will be accompanied by a ministry representative who will liaise with the jury to ensure its decision complies with general guidelines as they are developed by the ministry.
A verdict contrary to the public interest, as the ministry defines it, will no longer be permitted, and each jury will remain empaneled until the right verdict is reached. The government is considering long stay facilities for juries who require extra time and persuasion, and is currently negotiating a lease on a soon to be vacated idyllic resort town on the island of Cuba.
I know the public will applaud yet another commonsense move by this popular and freedom-loving government, who is intent on giving New Zealanders good, competent governance they can rely on, and boy, don’t they deserve it!
@put it away, I’ve heard stories of people growing marijuana and selling there crops for tens of thousands of dollars, I’ve also heard stories about people scamming the sickness benefit by going and telling there doctor that they are depressed and also getting proscribed drugs that they sell for money. I also seen some guy in the city the other night smash a window that must of been worth over 5 grand easy. These people don’t really care what others think about there actions, I guess everybody creates there own reality.
Kris k rambles on Christ died for ALL sins of ALL ‘men’ – no sin is too great which cannot be cleansed by Christ’s shed blood.
In essence, we are all guilty of Christ’s death
I just love how those who deny collective responsibility for criminals insist on collective responsibility in their religion.
According to physicist Leonard Susskind the boundary of the known universe is not a wall past which nothing can exist, but simply the farthest point from which light has reached Earth. Past that, there may very well be massive objects. But since the universe is expanding, their light will never reach us, and thus we cannot observe them along the electromagnetic spectrum.
NASA scientists believe they have confirmed a new player, dubbed “dark flow,” that is dragging hundreds of galaxies along the same expansion path – they believe that dark flow is actually the gravitational pull from large matter beyond the edge of the known universe.
Quite feasible that the actual “universe” is far greater than the known or observable universe.
Komata: Labour allowed mining access to Schedule 4 land? That would be illegal (with a few very limited exceptions) and of great concern if they did – do you have any evidence to back up your claim?
Crown Minerals Act 1991 s61(1A) says:
“The Minister of Conservation must not accept any application for an access arrangement or enter into any access arrangement relating to any Crown owned mineral in any Crown owned land or internal waters (as defined in section 4 of the Territorial Sea, Contiguous Zone, and Exclusive Economic Zone Act 1977) described in Schedule 4, except in relation to any activities as follows: …”
While Labour is not as bad as National / ACT, they do have a spotty environmental record, but I’ve not seen any evidence they crossed that particular line.
There is a difference between conservation land, and Schedule 4 land, which is a tiny fraction of all land in NZ, and is the most valuable conservation land that no New Zealander in their right mind would want mined.
Pete, I agree. I have always found it strange that they talk about “boundaries,” and to have it clarified like this is very helpful. There are things we will never know because in the greater scheme of things we are so insignificant. It’s unlikely that as a species we will last a lot longer anyway – we are getting up there already in terms of species longevity for such a delicate life form.
Green MP Kennedy Graham gave a speech today which is worth a read. It talks about how the government plans to get rid of elected Environment Canterbury demonstrate how the NACT government considers growth at all costs to be more important than democracy.
Report On James Louis Mason v The Queen CA 481/2009
March 23, 2010 by SPCS
In Wellington before Court of Appeal Judges: Hon. Justice William Young (President), Hon. J. Grant Hammond and Hon. J. David Baragwanath. Tuesday 23 March 2010.
In the second case heard in Courtroom 2 before the Court of Appeal on Tuesday morning 23 March 2010, James Louis Mason, 51, Christchurch musician and father of six, defended himself against his 2009 conviction of assault against his 4-year-old son. His wife Ann was in attendance and assisted him. A Society representative who attended the court hearing spoke at some length with James and his wife before the case, during recess and after the case. The court hearing was filmed by TV3 and a number of the media were present.
James Mason pointed out that six trained police policeman were called to the scene of the altercation (on the Christchurch Bridge of Remembrance) following an emergency call from an off-duty policewoman Senior Constable Andrea Trenchard. She had been alerted to the fact that James may have hit a boy, by a schoolteacher Mrs Belinda Paine, who along with her son claimed to have seen the alleged assault. James told the Court that a Senior Police Investigator Rick Dury was given the task of investigating the matter.
In the Christchurch District Court jury trial held before Justice Michael Crosbie, James had been found guilty on 19 May 2009 on “count 3” – the charge of assault involving ear pulling and/or punching his 4 year old Seth. James had maintained at that court hearing that he had only pulled Seth’s hair in the course of trying to drag him away from his bike and then when he refused to desist, he gave him an ear flick to reinforce the fact that he was to obey his father. (James was acquitted by the jury of assault under counts 1 & 2 involving force used in relation to the bike on which Seth was seated).
The Court of Appeal judges noted that Judge Crosbie had directed the jury that it was open to them to convict James of assault based only on the ear flick OR the punch OR both. Judge Crosbie had referred to the jury verdict on sentencing James on 17 June 2009 as “unanimous” in terms of a conviction for assault involving a “punch” and the media had reported this at the time.
James told the Court of Appeal today that he felt a serious injustice had occurred as he maintained he never punched his son. If he had been convicted of assault based on an ear flick he said that would be easier to bear, but the claim of a punch put him, he felt, into a category along with serious child abusers, of which he was not one. He expressed concern that little account seems to have been taken in sentencing to the context of the altercation that involved him being caught up in a serious injury, defiance shown by his boy and the imposition of a police woman intent on getting answers when he had other pressing issues to deal with.
James expressed concern to the Court of Appeal judges over the fact that the third count of assault deliberated on by the jury for nine hours before they made their decision, and for which he was found guilty, had treated the ear flick and punch under one count. He said he had brought the matter before the Appeal Court because he felt the ruling had been ambiguous as to whether he had been found guilty of punching his son or of ear-flicking him. The Court of Appeal judges referred to the “rolled up nature of count three” but contended that it was very common for distinct actions contributing to an assault be grouped. They noted that if James had been convicted of assault for both actions separately, he might have faced a stiffer sentence than the one he had got – nine months supervision and required attendance at an anger management course. – all of which he has now completed.
The three Court of Appeal judges appeared were very sympathetic to the fact that James faced a serious “trilemma” when the alleged assault took place. He was faced with dealing with an emergency when Zac crashed his bike and was seriously injured – to the degree that he was passing in and out of consciousness. He needed to urgently get ice to Zac to reduce the swelling of the forehead (and possible brain damage) while at the same time prevent young Seth from dashing off on his bike down a ramp and potentially have an accident. In addition he had his young daughter to care for who could not be left alone.
Confronted by an off-duty Senior Constable Andrea Trenchant who, based on a report she received from an onlooker (Mrs Paine), suggested he may have hit his son, James had only one thing on his mind – the welfare of his seriously injured boy Zac. James admitted that in the heat of the moment he was quite abrupt with the officer who seemed intent on pursuing the accusation rather than allowing him to get some ice for Zac’s treatment from a nearby shop. She informed him he could do no such thing and when six police officers arrived they talked with James and the two witnesses (Paines) about the allegations and took notes – all of which were subsequently lost.
James told the Court that the officer in charge, after completing the site investigation and having taken notes, told him he could go home with his kids and that no charges would be laid against him. However, he was told that they had “put a black mark” against his name and that should he be referred to them again for a similar matter they might take it further. The officer said he would contact James within a few days after making a few follow up investigations. Two days later James says that Inspector Rick Dury contacted him and told him that the police would not be laying charges and he repeated what he had said to him on the day of the incident.
James told the Court of Appeal that he had had to make 11 court appearances prior to the matter being dealt with in the Christchurch jury trial on 19 May 2009. He expressed his real concerns at the way his defence counsel Miss Elizabeth Bulger had dealt with the evidence leading up to the trial and regretted the fact that she had convinced him to have the alleged punch and ear pull grouped together under one charge.
Press reporter Phil Hamilton had contacted Rick Dury about the case after James had received a phone call from Sergeant Rick Dury who told him that the police would not lay charges. Mr Hamilton had been prompted to do so by the fact that Mrs Paine had raised concerns with the media about the way the police had used their discretion in the incident and failed as she saw it to lay charges. She was upset that a father who had punched his son might have used a defense under section 59 of the Crimes Act or some similar type defense based on reasonable force. And yet the case as Mr Mason has stated and the sentencing Judge stated publicly was never about the merits or otherwise of the “reasonable force/discipline” s. 59 defense.
Mr Mason argued before the Court of Appeal that once the police who had attended the altercation and interviewed witnesses had informed him that he was not to be charged, and two days later repeated this finding to him in a logged phone call, that should have been the end of the matter. The police had exercised their discretion and any subsequent action on their part to overturn the original finding should not be admissible in his view. He argued in effect that the application of the principle of natural justice was denied him when Mrs Paine went to the media and made public certain accusations against him that were contrary to what she had stated in the witness report, and did so BEFORE she went to the police with the same allegation. No witnesses came forward at the jury trial to say they had witnessed James punch his son.
On 29 June 2009, in a Police Media Release to NZPA, Christchurch Central Area Commander Derek Erasmus stated: “Mr Mason was seen by two very credible witnesses to punch his child and he was subsequently charged with this offence.” Keith Lynch reported for the Press on 19 May 2005 that Ms Paine had told the court Mason “yanked his son’s ear and hit him in the face with a clenched fist.”
However, when asked on the day of the altercation whether she had seen James punch his son, Mrs Paine and her son stated they were unsure. Senior Constable Trenchard who first voiced the accusation to James on the day, did not do so directly. She emphasised to him that “a lady thinks you MAY have punched your son” an accusation which James rejected when he explained to her that it was only an ear flick. It was only after Ms Trenchard refused to allow him to get ice for Zac that he made certain comments in the heat of anger that he now regrets that were used before the jury to convict him of assault.
James was adamant that the interview notes taken by officers at the time of the incident were all lost when the investigation was reopened only after Mrs Payne sought relief by spilling her complaints to the media three weeks after the event.
I just caught a snippet of Jim Mora’s The Panel (RNZ) and heard a fellow called Brian Mackie (I trust the spelling is correct), of a blog called Grumpy Old Geezers (GOG) hold forth as though he was the font of all knowledge and state that population control was the missing factor in the climate change equation.
This stance defies the known facts.
Some 80% of GHG currently in the atmosphere is caused by the developed, industrialised nations, which are about 20% of the world’s population, or 1.2 billion, or so. All these industrialised nations suffer from a slowing birth rate, so are not causing global population expansion. So Mr Mackie, in effect, aims his ire at the “others” – the wogs, the gooks, the currymunchers, the niggers, the Muslims etc – who do have high birth rates, and who are all in the firing line of early climate change effects, and who form part of the 4.8 billion who have contributed so little to our current problem.
Just a glance at the per capita emissions tables available on the web illustrates how far from the mark Mr Mackie is. And the mantra that the US is no longer the leading emitter is about to be challenged by new analysis due out soon which counts emissions at the consumer end of the chain. China’s tally will fall, for sure, since some 45% of their emissions are from goods manufactured for the developed nations (like us).
And since we export so much of our emissions heavy commodities, maybe it will be good news for New Zealand? A lucky break?
But back to poor old Mr Mackie, so woefully ill-informed, one wonders if he is mates with Garth George or Micael Lhaws.
I don’t see it as necessarily like that Viking. It shows how difficult it is to determine clear facts in a case. It seems to be all based on whether he hit his son with an “ear flick” – hard to know exactly what that would entail – or a punch. An ear flick could be a backhanded “flick”, and it can come down to how closed the fingers were (and the direction seen from) as to whether it was seen as an open handed whack or a closed fist punch.
Which surely is all moot anyway – a hit to the head no matter how it’s done is assault – in this case not bad, but assault nevertheless.
From just one topic that sorta suggests you don’t like Islam and expect your Christ side to rule. Where do you see Muslims fitting into your world after armageddon?
Hmm, well only hear say evidence as all the rest of the notes lost. Contradictory evidence from the witnesses. Six policeman on duty lost their notes and evidence from the other hearsay and not verifiable.
Trial by Trickery once again.
And after the officer in charge had twice said no charges to be laid. Well, where did the political interference start and who with. At what level in the Southern region police was the political decision taken to over ride the officer in charge?
Given an injured child required assistance what was the off duty police ladies actions and why? How come she didn’t assist Mason with his tasks. Wouldn’t want her to front to any emergency involving any males would we.
The biggest mistake Mason made was allowing a stupid woman lawyer to defend him. He shaould have got a tough nut male.
This is the Southern Area police continuing with their contempt for good process. How many men is that that have been subject to these behavoirs over the last 20 or more years.
The list is growing.
No doubt Smiley will have something to say about this as he has promoted himself as adjudicator of the efficacy of this particular law.
How Stupid.
Kris, I admit annihilation may be have been too strong a word.
You hope that God/Christ destroys his enemies? If that’s the case I apologise, you don’t want to annihilate them, you want someone else to.
Hardly what I call much of an apology. And hardly what I call manning up.
Actually, what I ‘hope’ is that God’s enemies repent and turn to Him – including Muslims.
But whatever the outcome, God will receive ALL the glory due Him – every knee will indeed bow; either willingly in this life, or when there is no other choice in the next.
And those that reject God’s provision for their sin will reap what they have sown – we are each responsible for our own eternal destiny, and rejecting God’s provision will lead to only ONE outcome – eternal separation from God in the lake of fire. There is no room in God’s heaven for unrepentant sinners; sadly for them.
Where’s a Toad when you need one? Has anyone seen the much-maligned amphibian – or has he gone back to the swamp to consult with Witthel and Keith and Jeanette, and Grass-growers anonymous and gaia and . . . ( add names as appropriate).
The question still hangs in the air, waiting, waitng, waiting. .
To respond to your question ‘All sinners annihilated after death?, the answer is no, they are condemned to a life of eternal torment in Hell (which is a very real place). As you will see in the verses below, the Bible tells of the existence of a lake of eternal fire and that sinners (those who do not acknowledge Jesus Christ as their Lord and Saviour) will be cast into it. And, of course, this is for eternity which is somewhat long (as in forever)
These references might be of interest:
Matthew 25:41 (Jesus speaking to people at final judgment), …Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels.
Revelation 14:11, And the smoke of their torment ascendeth up for ever and ever: and they have no rest day nor night…
Revelation 20:12, 15, And I saw the dead, small and great, stand before God; and the books were opened: and another book was opened, which is the book of life…And whosoever was not found written in the book of life was cast into the lake of fire.
Matthew 10:28, And fear not them which kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul: but rather fear him which is able to destroy both soul and body in hell.
Luke 12:5, But I will forewarn you whom ye shall fear: Fear him, which AFTER he hath killed hath power to cast into hell; yea, I say unto you, Fear him.
Matthew 18:8, 9 Wherefore if thy hand or thy foot offend thee, cut them off, and cast them from thee: it is better for thee to enter into life halt or maimed, rather than having two hands or feet to be cast into everlasting fire. And if thine eye offend thee, pluck it out, and cast it from thee: it is better for thee to enter into life with one eye, rather than having two eyes to be cast into hell fire.
As I said before, Eternity IS rather a long time and once you’re ‘in’ there is no way of ever getting out. Despite what the Hindu’s care to believe it’s a one-way trip and we don’t come back. Ultimately it comes down to choices – individual choices, and, at it’s simplest the choice is to fry forever, or enter into God’s glory in Heaven. Choices now made will have a very, very, very long term effect – a ‘forever’ effect if you will. I trust that you have made the correct one.
He has employed it repeatedly to argue that his version of media reform is the first step in the struggle to remake American society in a socialistic fashion. In his attack on the existing media “power structure” in the U.S., he calls for a “class struggle from below…In the end there is no real answer but to remove brick by brick the capitalist system itself, rebuilding the entire society on socialist principles.” [...]
As hard as it may be to believe, McChesney and his indefatigable band of media revolutionaries are being taken seriously by some policymakers in Washington. They are granted regular audiences with those overseeing our nation’s media policy at the FCC and FTC, and meeting regularly with members of Congress.
Their latest plan to defacto nationalize the media calls for the federal government to bail out newspapers with $60 billion in new government subsidies. As anyone familiar with Washington knows, money does not come free: Such subsidies will virtually invite the government into the fourth estate as overseers.
Actually, what I ‘hope’ is that God’s enemies repent and turn to Him – including Muslims.
But whatever the outcome, God will receive ALL the glory due Him – every knee will indeed bow; either willingly in this life, or when there is no other choice in the next.
But what if god turns out to be Allah? What then?
All the Christian repenting was completely useless. Oopps, bad luck.
Or maybe it is a Mayan god. Or Jupiter. Or Zeus.
Any of them could be true. Each of them are just as likely. (or unlikely)
People believe (or believed) in Allah, Zeus, Jupiter and all the other gods the very same way you believe in your god.
Since we’re all about quotes about hell, Komata, and not about additions or reinterpretations of the faith, Kris K, here’s this:
“The earliest records of ancient religions in Israel, Babylon (now Iraq), and Greece all refer to a place where the souls or “shades” of people who have died go to stay. This was often depicted as somewhere deep underground. But the idea that this land of the dead was reserved to punish wrongdoers didn’t arise until some time in the first millennium BC, in tandem with the belief that this subterranean world housed an infernal (lower, inferior) god. Initially, this underground world was sometimes a place where greater gods banished lesser gods. The anti-god Ahriman, for example, of the ancient Persian religion of Zoroastrianism (7th-6th century BC), took up residence beneath the Earth in the House of the Lie, amid every sort of filth and stench, after being defeated by the supreme god, Ahura Mazda. Ancient Israelite religions depicted Belial, a demon god, as Lord of the Abyss, an undersea pit. Likewise, Moloch, a god to whom child sacrifices were made throughout the ancient Middle East, was Lord of a subterranean kingdom of flaming lava. Eventually most of these devil-realms were combined with Sheol (the “Grave”), making this Near East concept of a depository of ghosts a place of torment. The Old Testament describes Sheol as a dark and dusty city with high, impregnable walls and barred gates–a place of no return for both good and bad souls*. Not until the 6th century AD did Catholic Christianity modify the Sheol concept, articulating a vision of Hell (an Old English word meaning “covered place”) that has endured to modern times: a place where the sinful are sent to burn in eternal fire. The Bible lacks any explicit statement about Satan ruling Hell, however. It was other early Christian writings that assigned him the role of Hell’s warden.”
– The Origin of Hell as a Place of Punishment by Robert M. Price.
What’s up with these godbotherers? God simply doesn’t exist. Why is it that perfectly logical people are willing to argue about something they cannot prove – exists and controls lives, weather patterns and peoples souls etc etc…
I don’t care about being “threatened” with eternal torment in hell. I guess it’s a bit stronger than “if you pull faces and the wind changes you’ll stay like that”, “if you don’t each your veges you won’t grow big and strong” and “if you wank you’ll go blind”. The vege thing has some scientific basis, the others are just scare tactics used on kids who don’t know any better.
I never believed the heaven and hell thing when I was a kid, it was just like another fairy story, I was fortunate my parents didn’t try and ram the frighteners down my throat, and the reverends were no more than quaint doddy old dudes.
But I know that some kids can get seriously fucked up by life after death extortion stories. Some get stuck with aspects of the threats for life, some grow up and see through the priests on power trips.
One old story does ring true, the emperor was embarrassed when he realised how foolish he had been. Does the vicar keep wearing his robes of everlasting glory, oblivious to the sham? Or does he just use it because he thinks it keeps the gullible in line?
Clint Heine: These aren’t “perfectly logical people”. Nobody’s perfectly logical. If they were, they wouldn’t hold a belief without good evidence. As to why people believe in religion, there are many possible reasons. Some have even suggested a component is genetic, although that hasn’t been well-proven to my knowledge. I think what it comes down to are things like fear (of the presently unknown, of death and so on) and mankind’s general egocentricity (you want a creator-God which puts you as the apex of creation). Furthermore, there have been studies which show religion confirms one’s prejudices (http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn18216-dear-god-please-confirm-what-i-already-believe.html). That is to say that religion is often used to justify saying which could otherwise not be justified by rational and coherent thought.
Pete George: I posted the extract and link about hell to point out that it is an addition to the Christian faith given Kris K’s idea as to cults and Komata’s Bible quotes. As to why I suggested they and other God-believers look at the Evil God Hypothesis, it is because it shows that there are just as many similar reasons to believe in an utterly malevolent God as there are to believe in a wholly benevolent God, yet they will typically scoff at one idea because of its absurdity and embrace the other.
As to why I point these things like this out, it is because they bring their belief here, but not only does it inform what they say (which I would be fine with), it goes further into the realm of Bible-thumping, “if you don’t believe that which I believe you’re going to Hell territory”. It gets into the territory of preaching, and that shouldn’t be happening on a forum about politics.
March 26th, 2010 at 9:21 am
Flock hypocrisy.
This is why increasing numbers in the educated world have problems with many religious groups – if it’s one of their own they just need to “be sorry”, repent and live “in dignity”, but if it’s someone on the outside they should be burnt on the stake and eternally burn in hell.
March 26th, 2010 at 9:23 am
To return to a topic first started yesterday, (‘Labour and Mining’) a serious question aimed specifically at Toad (or local NZ ‘Green-party representative)
Toad: Can you please explain why the Greens kept extremely silent about Labour’s mining in Schedule 4 Conservation land yet now yell and scream when National indicate that they are ‘Considering’ the possibility of doing a small amount iof underground mining in a Schedule 4 area – and please don’t duck behind the ‘I’m not a leader so I woudn’t know’ excuse – you have been presenting yourself as being exthwemely well-informed about your party’s policies.
Over to you Toad, and please, a serious, considered, coherent reply.
The floor is yours.
Thanks
March 26th, 2010 at 9:30 am
Bailey Junior Kurariki.
Discuss.
BTW his mother says she’d shoot him. No doubt though we can cuddle him into being a responsible human being.
March 26th, 2010 at 9:33 am
BJK – a product of family, prison and the media. Probably destined to keep living down to expectations.
March 26th, 2010 at 9:42 am
The fucking newspaers made him smash a guy in the head witt a softball bat?????
Jesus is there no limit to left wing fuckwitttery.
Timeline, he went to prison and got media coverage AFTER he chose all by himself to set up, ambush and kill a guy for a couple of pizzas and some small change. His mother seems to be against this short of thing given her comment that she’d like to blow him away.
Cram your collective guilt crap. He is what he chose to be.
March 26th, 2010 at 9:53 am
No, the “fucking newspaers” didn’t contribute until after he was charged – and he didn’t hit anyone with a bat.
He didn’t chose his family.
He did choose his de facto “family” of friends who carried him along and helped him get into the shit, and get into prison.
If the media had left him alone when he got out he may be as bad as he is now, but he may have had more of a chance to get his shit together and do something decent with his life.
It doesn’t look like hugging is something he understands (that could go back to family, reinforced by his mother’s comment).
March 26th, 2010 at 10:08 am
Good grief Labour and Radio NZ are looking like dickheads after Peter Sharples explained why and how is thinking on educational national standards changed since the beat up report this morning outlining his concerns back in January (see Radio NZ Morning Report after 7am for his explantion, seems reasonable to me).
But at 10am RNZ said his emails were given to them. By whom? Labour sympathisers or “leakers”?
Any connection with Kevin Hackarse of Forest & Bird getting some “leaked” cabinet documents on mining and any connection with back in 2005 when H1, Winnie and other assorted Labour types pre-warning of damaging “leaked” emailsof Don Brasj about to be published into a “telephone book” that were passed onto Nicky Hager to write his book about etc?
March 26th, 2010 at 10:11 am
It is earth hour tomorrow, time to turn on all of the lights at 8pm tomorrow night.
GW is dead, why do we keep doing these acts of stupidity?
March 26th, 2010 at 10:29 am
Lazybum (13) Says:
March 26th, 2010 at 10:11 am
It is earth hour tomorrow, time to turn on all of the lights at 8pm tomorrow night.
GW is dead, why do we keep doing these acts of stupidity?
Nope!
Far better to ignore it completely than give the bullshit credibility by protesting against it.
March 26th, 2010 at 10:33 am
A decent proportion of government jobs on Seek requesting backgrounds in climate change and/or sustainabilty. Discuss.
Lazybum: publicity for whichever organisation’s idea/promotion it is. Popular because it allows people to make a token gesture and feel satisfied they’ve done something without actually having to do anything of note that would require hardship, change of behaviour/s and/or effort. (Note: while I am ambivalent about climate change/don’t really give a shit about it, I see trying to conserve resources/use them more efficiently/be sustainable as a good thing in a world with scarce resources.)
March 26th, 2010 at 10:35 am
Gosh Pete George, the way you tell it he’s just a victim. Michael Choy was the victim.
March 26th, 2010 at 10:56 am
They’re both victims.
March 26th, 2010 at 11:06 am
Toad, speak up on the request as to why the “Watermelons” didnt piss and moan on Labours schedule 4 mining please, but now are pissing and moaning like true bitches?
March 26th, 2010 at 11:10 am
“They’re both victims.”
One was doing a job and was ruthlessly and brutally murdered. The other acted as lookout for the crime and has hardly reformed since then and looks destined to be a burden on society for the rest of his miserable life.
March 26th, 2010 at 11:18 am
A pity Kuariki was not a blow job (JB as he is named), we will pay for his existence for years to come. And he has a child on the way. More pressure on my wallet.
March 26th, 2010 at 11:31 am
I meant BJ, not JB
March 26th, 2010 at 11:48 am
An accurate description of the two victims, yes.
March 26th, 2010 at 11:57 am
Bullshit Ryan. We all have different starts in life, but EVERY ONE OF US has choice. Those who make compounding bad choices that lead to a cycle of crime & punishment are not victims of anything other than their own poor choices.
March 26th, 2010 at 12:07 pm
Nonsense.
March 26th, 2010 at 12:13 pm
Pete George 9:33 am,
Gee Pete, I’m surprised you weren’t able to somehow work in that “religious groups” were additionally responsible for BJK’s lifestyle choices – as per your opening comment at 9:21 am.
Speaking of which, do we sense a somewhat loaded first sentence in that comment:
So, the “educated world have problems with many religious groups” – and by inference, therefore, the uneducated (I know you really meant ‘thick’, but we’ll call them uneducated) are just cannon fodder for “religious groups”. And, of course, no thinking person could possibly follow a religion, or, for that matter, believe in God.
You like to ‘appear’ reasonable, Pete, but at every opportunity you try to denigrade, by inference, Christianity by tarring all followers of Christ with your current pet example – in this case a Roman Catholic Priest who is a homosexual pedophile, and those who covered up his crimes.
And, as I’ve said before, Roman Catholocism is not part of mainstream Christianity, but is rather a (the largest) Christian cult.
(Cult: a religion which adds to/replaces the finished works of Christ on the cross; generally a religion of works to gain ‘salvation’.)
March 26th, 2010 at 12:24 pm
In relation to Pita Sharples and Kura kaupa schools being included in a trial but not actually in the full scheme.
Mr Sharples also mentioned quite negative results from Hamilton East School re national standards from maori pupils. Results were not good apparently.
The simple question needs to be answered. Are the kura’s turning out well rounded students academically,socially and emotionally?
My quick guess is no. I bet you there is a lot of politically correct dance steps being played in these institutions. Things will be displayed as earth shattering but the story will be one of poor performance accompanied by the replaying of the Land Wars of the 19th centry..
The kura’s not
n appearance in national standards figures for another year is another effort by many in the maori communiuty to disguise the real problems in their society.
That the maori race have many unanswered social problems that many of those same people will not face.
Crime,unemployment,prisoners,academic standards remain elusive to many maoris’. Hiding them behind claptrap like heritage problems and rascism of the past will not help them.
March 26th, 2010 at 12:27 pm
The Honeymoon is coming to an end. Smiles only work for a while I guess.
Prime Minister John Key heckled in Levin
By VERNON SMALL
Last updated 11:17 26/03/2010
Prime Minister John Key was booed by a noisy crowd protesting plans to cut 24 beds from Horowhenua’s $16.1 million health centre during a trip to Levin this morning.
Mr Key, who was in the town to open the new District Court building, was confronted by about 150 people who stood across the road waving placards to protest the planned cuts, which would leave just four maternity beds at the centre and force other patients to travel to Palmerston North or Wellington for treatment.
http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/3511298/Prime-Minister-John-Key-heckled-in-Levin
March 26th, 2010 at 12:30 pm
Ryan Sproull 11:48 am,
Good grief, Ryan!
When you use terms such as ‘victim’ to describe the likes of Kuariki, you are in fact excusing his behaviour by implying he has no personal resposibility for his actions.
No doubt you also think Bell, Burton, etc are just victims of circumstances not of their own making.
These pricks are just evil and, bottom line, still chose to murder, or be involved with the murder of, innocent strangers.
I believe some people are evil to the core and are therefore beyond redemption, and the only option is to put them down like we would a rabid dog.
March 26th, 2010 at 12:44 pm
An interesting case of concurrent threads.
In one we have someone who was accused of, found guilty and later acquitted if killing his dysfunctional family.
In another we have someone (and his mother) who people are calling scum and should be removed from society.
If someone shot JBK and his mother would they be a hero or a villain here?
March 26th, 2010 at 12:45 pm
“The simple question needs to be answered. Are the kura’s turning out well rounded students academically,socially and emotionally?”
My only experience is vicarious – 2 different friends looked into kura as options for their kids and both concluded that none of their local kura provided a safe learning environment. All their kids seem to be doing fine in mainstream publich schools.
March 26th, 2010 at 12:51 pm
That reinforces my previous point.
Kris, I wasn’t just referring to your Christians in my first post. Uneducated religious groups are all sorts – prime examples in Afghanistan, Somalia, and Kenya (both Christian and Muslim).
If Kurariki had “found god” in prison (as some “scum” seem to do), and was now a regular committed churchgoer would a repent or two be ok or should he still be put down like a rabid dog?
Do you have a difference answer to the previous question if he was in your congregation compared to, say a Catholic congregation, or Muslim congregation?
March 26th, 2010 at 1:04 pm
$10k?!? Pffft. How about she repays the people of New Zealand her fraudulently acquired salary?
March 26th, 2010 at 1:11 pm
No, I’m not.
Obviously they are – or, more accurately, the way they’ve chosen to make their lives is a result of circumstances not of their own making.
Do you go to a church that preaches that some people are beyond redemption?
March 26th, 2010 at 1:16 pm
@Ryan Sproull: he is a victim yes, but he is also a victimiser who ultimately made a terrible choice, but a choice it still was. The question now is whether he is rehabilitatable, and if so, is it worth rehabilitating him (cost of doing so versus benefit)?
“(Cult: a religion which adds to/replaces the finished works of Christ on the cross; generally a religion of works to gain ’salvation’.)”
@Kris K: That’s not a technical definition of “cult”. It’s a certain Christian interpretation of what they think a cult is with relation to their own interpretation of Christianity, so that they can tar other interpretations of Christianity with the brush of “cult”.
@krazykiwi: Did she do a good job on the whole? Yes, I realise there was controversy and stupidity at the end.
More of interest to me, however, is that in the USA, the Ponzi Scheme that is social security is to see the pay-out exceed its pay-in.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/25/business/economy/25social.html?adxnnl=1&partner=rss&emc=rss&adxnnlx=1269532969-MWP4yDGmjs50NTkvS/d0LQ
March 26th, 2010 at 1:20 pm
“Obviously they are – or, more accurately, the way they’ve chosen to make their lives is a result of circumstances not of their own making.”
@Ryan Sproull: Not everything is down to circumstance. The choices made in response to circumstance are a combination of inherent nature and external environment (Yes, one’s nature is informed by circumstance but one’s nature also determines how informed it is, and in what manner, by circumstance). The way they’ve chosen to make their lives is not just a result of circumstances not of their own making.
March 26th, 2010 at 1:20 pm
That may be the question for you, but most people seem to want revenge on him, rather than to seriously consider if rehabilitation is possible or worth the cost.
March 26th, 2010 at 1:24 pm
Toad, Toad, anyone seen Toad? ‘Oh Toad where-art thou, Toad’?
And why haven’t you answere my question Toad – you know, the one I posed at 0923 -( Or, if not my question, then certainly Wharfes’ one that he posted at 11.26).
We’re all waiting Toad – especially as you seem SO very ready to respond to everyone-else’s postings about the Nats’ and mining, yet are now conspicuously silent about your beloved Green’s and Labour’s hipocracy’s in granting mining rights in Conservations areas.
Come on old chap – play the game (since after all that’s what you demand of us).
We’re waiting . . .
(Oh, and its 13.23 on 26 March 2010 as I type this)
March 26th, 2010 at 1:24 pm
“Inherent nature” and “external environment” are both unchosen.
March 26th, 2010 at 1:33 pm
Yes. I suppose the point I’m trying to make (badly) is that if you look at it like that, you effectively remove their responsibility for their actions, as they don’t determine their inherent nature or other external factors. Although I suppose responsibility and accountability are slightly different things, and even if you remove responsibility, you don’t necessarily deny that they should be held accountable (perhaps in the hope that their nature will change in response or that benefit seeking behaviour will kick in, provided their sense of costs/benefits is fairly in line with what actual costs/benefits are?).
March 26th, 2010 at 1:36 pm
Pete George 12:51 pm,
Yeah, righto Pete; if you say so.
While God may forgive repentant sinners, the past is the past, and there are consequences to our actions no matter how sorry we may be after the fact. And so while the state may exact justice by taking the individual’s life, if they have genuinely repented and received Christ as their Lord and Saviour, then God’s justice has been met through Christ’s death on the cross.
It is better to lose your physical life, but gain eternal life.
March 26th, 2010 at 1:37 pm
It is debatable whether looking at it like that (or “acknowledging the facts”) removes their responsibility for their actions. I’d be interested to hear how you’d define “responsibility” in this context without using any synonyms for “responsibility”.
True. There’s always disincentive and protection of the community.
March 26th, 2010 at 1:44 pm
Kris, are you suggesting Kurariki should be executed?
If Hitler had been captured alive, and then genuinely repented and received Christ as his Lord and Saviour, and then was executed, would God’s justice have been met through Christ’s death on the cross?
Would he have lost his physical life and gained eternal life?
March 26th, 2010 at 1:44 pm
fuckwitttery
LOL – Love it!
Even better than dumbfuckery.
March 26th, 2010 at 1:47 pm
Is fuckwittery just a dirty joke?
March 26th, 2010 at 1:52 pm
Is one responsible for something if they are forced to do it, or is whatever is doing the forcing responsible? In this case it seems what you’re saying is that his nature, which he did not choose, and his environment, which he did not choose, have forced him to do what he did. I suppose I am distinguishing between direct and indirect responsibility, however.
March 26th, 2010 at 1:57 pm
Ryan Sproull 1:11 pm,
Well I think you are.
So when does personal responsibility ‘kick in’, Ryan, or do we just keep on making excuses for these individuals for the rest of their lives? And everytime they commit another crime we encourage them to pull out the victim card, yet again.
While Christ indeed died for the sins of ALL ‘men’, the reality is that many/most will not repent of their sin, and nor will they receive Christ as their Lord and Saviour – the Bible says as much.
And so I stand by my “many are beyond redemption” in that they refuse to repent and come to God on His terms.
Do you believe in EVIL, Ryan?
Do you believe that some ‘men’ are just plain evil? (I invoke Godwin’s Law here).
March 26th, 2010 at 2:06 pm
“That may be the question for you, but most people seem to want revenge on him, rather than to seriously consider if rehabilitation is possible or worth the cost.”
I don’t even give it a second thought. He’d be dead if I made the laws.
March 26th, 2010 at 2:12 pm
A lot more people would be dead sooner if more people made their own laws.
Jivekitty, other people are partly responsible for the person he has become and for some of the things he has done, but he is ultimately responsible for his own actions, especially now he is 21.
March 26th, 2010 at 2:14 pm
Pete George 1:44 pm,
If we had the death penalty on the statute books then that would be up to a jury to decide. But I imagine him being a minor at the time would be a consideration.
If Hitler’s conversion had been genuine, then yes, God’s justice would have been met; Hitler would gain eternal life. Only God knows the hearts of men.
Christ died for ALL sins of ALL ‘men’ – no sin is too great which cannot be cleansed by Christ’s shed blood.
In essence, we are all guilty of Christ’s death – Christ had to die PHYSICALLY that we might not die SPIRITUALLY. That is, that we might have eternal life.
[NB Christ actually died SPIRITUALLY as well - when He was separated from God the Father WHILE He 'wore' our sin on the cross. Spiritual death is defined as separation from God.]
March 26th, 2010 at 2:18 pm
Anyone else think Kick Ass looks awesome?
March 26th, 2010 at 2:18 pm
@Pete George: Yes, I hold the view that he is ultimately responsible.
@KiwiGreg: Hell yes, I do! I’m hoping trades of the comic will get a re-release though. I’ve heard some fans have been disappointed, so I’d like to be able to a comparison.
March 26th, 2010 at 2:28 pm
# Murray at 9:42 am – Cram your collective guilt crap. He is what he chose to be.
# Kris K at 2:14 pm – In essence, we are all guilty of Christ’s death
I’m not guilty of anything related to Kurariki or Christ.
March 26th, 2010 at 2:32 pm
@Pete George: :O You forgot about the stain of mankind’s sin upon your soul, because we are automatically responsible for the actions everybody else has taken or will ever take, or so I hear. The worst sin was the first, gaining knowledge. For shame.
March 26th, 2010 at 2:35 pm
@JK I didnt even know it was a comic til after my wife sent me the link. Will have to look into. Actress playing Hit Girl seems superb but they had me at Nicolas Cage.
March 26th, 2010 at 3:15 pm
I’ve got a weekload of washing to put through the drier. 8 pm tomorrow seems like as good a time as any…
March 26th, 2010 at 3:20 pm
I’ve been leaked upon! O lucky me!
Draft press release leaked from the PM’s office that just happened to be left in a briefcase on a park bench (with the obligatory pie and Penthouse).
March 2010
In response to the verdict in the trial of the Waihopai Three, the government has decided that, in order to assure more uniformity of jury decisions, it will create a Ministry of Juries.
After the initial set up period, every jury empaneled in NZ will be accompanied by a ministry representative who will liaise with the jury to ensure its decision complies with general guidelines as they are developed by the ministry.
A verdict contrary to the public interest, as the ministry defines it, will no longer be permitted, and each jury will remain empaneled until the right verdict is reached. The government is considering long stay facilities for juries who require extra time and persuasion, and is currently negotiating a lease on a soon to be vacated idyllic resort town on the island of Cuba.
I know the public will applaud yet another commonsense move by this popular and freedom-loving government, who is intent on giving New Zealanders good, competent governance they can rely on, and boy, don’t they deserve it!
John Key
PM
March 26th, 2010 at 3:41 pm
@put it away, I’ve heard stories of people growing marijuana and selling there crops for tens of thousands of dollars, I’ve also heard stories about people scamming the sickness benefit by going and telling there doctor that they are depressed and also getting proscribed drugs that they sell for money. I also seen some guy in the city the other night smash a window that must of been worth over 5 grand easy. These people don’t really care what others think about there actions, I guess everybody creates there own reality.
March 26th, 2010 at 3:53 pm
Kris k rambles on Christ died for ALL sins of ALL ‘men’ – no sin is too great which cannot be cleansed by Christ’s shed blood.
In essence, we are all guilty of Christ’s death
I just love how those who deny collective responsibility for criminals insist on collective responsibility in their religion.
March 26th, 2010 at 4:12 pm
Luc @ 3.20pm. Don’t give up your day job – on this evidence you’re unlikely to make a living writing satire.
krazykiwi @ 1.04pm. Mary Anne Thompson should have received a year in jail. Saved solely because she was a female, I suspect.
March 26th, 2010 at 4:29 pm
Breaking news;
Trevor and Goff have called a press conference to apologise for Labour issuing 218 mining permits in DOC land.
OK, I was joking – Labour don’t do apologies unless you class retrospective validations as back handed admission of wrong doing.
March 26th, 2010 at 5:06 pm
The “boundaries” of the universe?
This is in reference to:
Quite feasible that the actual “universe” is far greater than the known or observable universe.
March 26th, 2010 at 5:22 pm
Komata: Labour allowed mining access to Schedule 4 land? That would be illegal (with a few very limited exceptions) and of great concern if they did – do you have any evidence to back up your claim?
Crown Minerals Act 1991 s61(1A) says:
“The Minister of Conservation must not accept any application for an access arrangement or enter into any access arrangement relating to any Crown owned mineral in any Crown owned land or internal waters (as defined in section 4 of the Territorial Sea, Contiguous Zone, and Exclusive Economic Zone Act 1977) described in Schedule 4, except in relation to any activities as follows: …”
While Labour is not as bad as National / ACT, they do have a spotty environmental record, but I’ve not seen any evidence they crossed that particular line.
There is a difference between conservation land, and Schedule 4 land, which is a tiny fraction of all land in NZ, and is the most valuable conservation land that no New Zealander in their right mind would want mined.
March 26th, 2010 at 5:27 pm
Pete, I agree. I have always found it strange that they talk about “boundaries,” and to have it clarified like this is very helpful. There are things we will never know because in the greater scheme of things we are so insignificant. It’s unlikely that as a species we will last a lot longer anyway – we are getting up there already in terms of species longevity for such a delicate life form.
March 26th, 2010 at 5:28 pm
Green MP Kennedy Graham gave a speech today which is worth a read. It talks about how the government plans to get rid of elected Environment Canterbury demonstrate how the NACT government considers growth at all costs to be more important than democracy.
The link: http://www.greens.org.nz/speeches/general-debate-canterbury-water-and-sustainable-development
March 26th, 2010 at 5:44 pm
This is a bit long but worth the read.
Report On James Louis Mason v The Queen CA 481/2009
March 23, 2010 by SPCS
In Wellington before Court of Appeal Judges: Hon. Justice William Young (President), Hon. J. Grant Hammond and Hon. J. David Baragwanath. Tuesday 23 March 2010.
In the second case heard in Courtroom 2 before the Court of Appeal on Tuesday morning 23 March 2010, James Louis Mason, 51, Christchurch musician and father of six, defended himself against his 2009 conviction of assault against his 4-year-old son. His wife Ann was in attendance and assisted him. A Society representative who attended the court hearing spoke at some length with James and his wife before the case, during recess and after the case. The court hearing was filmed by TV3 and a number of the media were present.
James Mason pointed out that six trained police policeman were called to the scene of the altercation (on the Christchurch Bridge of Remembrance) following an emergency call from an off-duty policewoman Senior Constable Andrea Trenchard. She had been alerted to the fact that James may have hit a boy, by a schoolteacher Mrs Belinda Paine, who along with her son claimed to have seen the alleged assault. James told the Court that a Senior Police Investigator Rick Dury was given the task of investigating the matter.
In the Christchurch District Court jury trial held before Justice Michael Crosbie, James had been found guilty on 19 May 2009 on “count 3” – the charge of assault involving ear pulling and/or punching his 4 year old Seth. James had maintained at that court hearing that he had only pulled Seth’s hair in the course of trying to drag him away from his bike and then when he refused to desist, he gave him an ear flick to reinforce the fact that he was to obey his father. (James was acquitted by the jury of assault under counts 1 & 2 involving force used in relation to the bike on which Seth was seated).
The Court of Appeal judges noted that Judge Crosbie had directed the jury that it was open to them to convict James of assault based only on the ear flick OR the punch OR both. Judge Crosbie had referred to the jury verdict on sentencing James on 17 June 2009 as “unanimous” in terms of a conviction for assault involving a “punch” and the media had reported this at the time.
James told the Court of Appeal today that he felt a serious injustice had occurred as he maintained he never punched his son. If he had been convicted of assault based on an ear flick he said that would be easier to bear, but the claim of a punch put him, he felt, into a category along with serious child abusers, of which he was not one. He expressed concern that little account seems to have been taken in sentencing to the context of the altercation that involved him being caught up in a serious injury, defiance shown by his boy and the imposition of a police woman intent on getting answers when he had other pressing issues to deal with.
James expressed concern to the Court of Appeal judges over the fact that the third count of assault deliberated on by the jury for nine hours before they made their decision, and for which he was found guilty, had treated the ear flick and punch under one count. He said he had brought the matter before the Appeal Court because he felt the ruling had been ambiguous as to whether he had been found guilty of punching his son or of ear-flicking him. The Court of Appeal judges referred to the “rolled up nature of count three” but contended that it was very common for distinct actions contributing to an assault be grouped. They noted that if James had been convicted of assault for both actions separately, he might have faced a stiffer sentence than the one he had got – nine months supervision and required attendance at an anger management course. – all of which he has now completed.
The three Court of Appeal judges appeared were very sympathetic to the fact that James faced a serious “trilemma” when the alleged assault took place. He was faced with dealing with an emergency when Zac crashed his bike and was seriously injured – to the degree that he was passing in and out of consciousness. He needed to urgently get ice to Zac to reduce the swelling of the forehead (and possible brain damage) while at the same time prevent young Seth from dashing off on his bike down a ramp and potentially have an accident. In addition he had his young daughter to care for who could not be left alone.
Confronted by an off-duty Senior Constable Andrea Trenchant who, based on a report she received from an onlooker (Mrs Paine), suggested he may have hit his son, James had only one thing on his mind – the welfare of his seriously injured boy Zac. James admitted that in the heat of the moment he was quite abrupt with the officer who seemed intent on pursuing the accusation rather than allowing him to get some ice for Zac’s treatment from a nearby shop. She informed him he could do no such thing and when six police officers arrived they talked with James and the two witnesses (Paines) about the allegations and took notes – all of which were subsequently lost.
James told the Court that the officer in charge, after completing the site investigation and having taken notes, told him he could go home with his kids and that no charges would be laid against him. However, he was told that they had “put a black mark” against his name and that should he be referred to them again for a similar matter they might take it further. The officer said he would contact James within a few days after making a few follow up investigations. Two days later James says that Inspector Rick Dury contacted him and told him that the police would not be laying charges and he repeated what he had said to him on the day of the incident.
James told the Court of Appeal that he had had to make 11 court appearances prior to the matter being dealt with in the Christchurch jury trial on 19 May 2009. He expressed his real concerns at the way his defence counsel Miss Elizabeth Bulger had dealt with the evidence leading up to the trial and regretted the fact that she had convinced him to have the alleged punch and ear pull grouped together under one charge.
Press reporter Phil Hamilton had contacted Rick Dury about the case after James had received a phone call from Sergeant Rick Dury who told him that the police would not lay charges. Mr Hamilton had been prompted to do so by the fact that Mrs Paine had raised concerns with the media about the way the police had used their discretion in the incident and failed as she saw it to lay charges. She was upset that a father who had punched his son might have used a defense under section 59 of the Crimes Act or some similar type defense based on reasonable force. And yet the case as Mr Mason has stated and the sentencing Judge stated publicly was never about the merits or otherwise of the “reasonable force/discipline” s. 59 defense.
Mr Mason argued before the Court of Appeal that once the police who had attended the altercation and interviewed witnesses had informed him that he was not to be charged, and two days later repeated this finding to him in a logged phone call, that should have been the end of the matter. The police had exercised their discretion and any subsequent action on their part to overturn the original finding should not be admissible in his view. He argued in effect that the application of the principle of natural justice was denied him when Mrs Paine went to the media and made public certain accusations against him that were contrary to what she had stated in the witness report, and did so BEFORE she went to the police with the same allegation. No witnesses came forward at the jury trial to say they had witnessed James punch his son.
On 29 June 2009, in a Police Media Release to NZPA, Christchurch Central Area Commander Derek Erasmus stated: “Mr Mason was seen by two very credible witnesses to punch his child and he was subsequently charged with this offence.” Keith Lynch reported for the Press on 19 May 2005 that Ms Paine had told the court Mason “yanked his son’s ear and hit him in the face with a clenched fist.”
However, when asked on the day of the altercation whether she had seen James punch his son, Mrs Paine and her son stated they were unsure. Senior Constable Trenchard who first voiced the accusation to James on the day, did not do so directly. She emphasised to him that “a lady thinks you MAY have punched your son” an accusation which James rejected when he explained to her that it was only an ear flick. It was only after Ms Trenchard refused to allow him to get ice for Zac that he made certain comments in the heat of anger that he now regrets that were used before the jury to convict him of assault.
James was adamant that the interview notes taken by officers at the time of the incident were all lost when the investigation was reopened only after Mrs Payne sought relief by spilling her complaints to the media three weeks after the event.
The Court of Appeal Judges reserved their decision.Published:
http://www.spcs.org.nz/2010/report-on-j … #more-1022
Reference:
Sentencing Gives Clarity
Monday, 29 June 2009, 12:22 pm
Press Release: New Zealand Police
http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/AK0906/S00381.htm
The Press 19 May 2009 Story by Keith Lynch (Court report).
http://www.nzcpr.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=124&sid=fecf1931b40296d4f4f559d5d8e3d2d4&p=29194#p29194
March 26th, 2010 at 5:45 pm
Looks like the police and the Paynes are in trouble here to me.
March 26th, 2010 at 5:52 pm
I just caught a snippet of Jim Mora’s The Panel (RNZ) and heard a fellow called Brian Mackie (I trust the spelling is correct), of a blog called Grumpy Old Geezers (GOG) hold forth as though he was the font of all knowledge and state that population control was the missing factor in the climate change equation.
This stance defies the known facts.
Some 80% of GHG currently in the atmosphere is caused by the developed, industrialised nations, which are about 20% of the world’s population, or 1.2 billion, or so. All these industrialised nations suffer from a slowing birth rate, so are not causing global population expansion. So Mr Mackie, in effect, aims his ire at the “others” – the wogs, the gooks, the currymunchers, the niggers, the Muslims etc – who do have high birth rates, and who are all in the firing line of early climate change effects, and who form part of the 4.8 billion who have contributed so little to our current problem.
Just a glance at the per capita emissions tables available on the web illustrates how far from the mark Mr Mackie is. And the mantra that the US is no longer the leading emitter is about to be challenged by new analysis due out soon which counts emissions at the consumer end of the chain. China’s tally will fall, for sure, since some 45% of their emissions are from goods manufactured for the developed nations (like us).
And since we export so much of our emissions heavy commodities, maybe it will be good news for New Zealand? A lucky break?
But back to poor old Mr Mackie, so woefully ill-informed, one wonders if he is mates with Garth George or Micael Lhaws.
March 26th, 2010 at 6:30 pm
I don’t see it as necessarily like that Viking. It shows how difficult it is to determine clear facts in a case. It seems to be all based on whether he hit his son with an “ear flick” – hard to know exactly what that would entail – or a punch. An ear flick could be a backhanded “flick”, and it can come down to how closed the fingers were (and the direction seen from) as to whether it was seen as an open handed whack or a closed fist punch.
Which surely is all moot anyway – a hit to the head no matter how it’s done is assault – in this case not bad, but assault nevertheless.
March 26th, 2010 at 6:54 pm
Moved to GD…
“No matter where Islam raises it’s head it is a problem to peace, democracy, and civil society.”
http://www.kiwiblog.co.nz/2010/02/does_he_have_a_point.html#comment-658627
“Christ will reign for 1000 years following the battle of armageddon.”
http://www.kiwiblog.co.nz/2010/02/does_he_have_a_point.html#comment-658666
“God on the throne; that’s a whole different kettle of fish.
Of course the Bible says I’ll be reigning with Him, so I suppose I have a vested interest.
Bring it on, I say!”
http://www.kiwiblog.co.nz/2010/02/does_he_have_a_point.html#comment-658675
From just one topic that sorta suggests you don’t like Islam and expect your Christ side to rule. Where do you see Muslims fitting into your world after armageddon?
March 26th, 2010 at 7:23 pm
Hmm, well only hear say evidence as all the rest of the notes lost. Contradictory evidence from the witnesses. Six policeman on duty lost their notes and evidence from the other hearsay and not verifiable.
Trial by Trickery once again.
And after the officer in charge had twice said no charges to be laid. Well, where did the political interference start and who with. At what level in the Southern region police was the political decision taken to over ride the officer in charge?
Given an injured child required assistance what was the off duty police ladies actions and why? How come she didn’t assist Mason with his tasks. Wouldn’t want her to front to any emergency involving any males would we.
The biggest mistake Mason made was allowing a stupid woman lawyer to defend him. He shaould have got a tough nut male.
This is the Southern Area police continuing with their contempt for good process. How many men is that that have been subject to these behavoirs over the last 20 or more years.
The list is growing.
No doubt Smiley will have something to say about this as he has promoted himself as adjudicator of the efficacy of this particular law.
How Stupid.
March 26th, 2010 at 7:25 pm
Pete George 6:54 pm,
Still not good enough, Pete!
Once again; where have I stated that my PERSONAL AIM is “TO ANNIHILATE” MUSLIMS.
If God/Christ chooses to judge/destroy His enemies then that’s His business.
I WANT A RETRACTION AND AN APOLOGY. – I’m still waiting!
March 26th, 2010 at 7:29 pm
Kris, I admit annihilation may be have been too strong a word.
You hope that God/Christ destroys his enemies? If that’s the case I apologise, you don’t want to annihilate them, you want someone else to.
March 26th, 2010 at 7:52 pm
Pete George 7:29 pm,
Hardly what I call much of an apology. And hardly what I call manning up.
Actually, what I ‘hope’ is that God’s enemies repent and turn to Him – including Muslims.
But whatever the outcome, God will receive ALL the glory due Him – every knee will indeed bow; either willingly in this life, or when there is no other choice in the next.
And those that reject God’s provision for their sin will reap what they have sown – we are each responsible for our own eternal destiny, and rejecting God’s provision will lead to only ONE outcome – eternal separation from God in the lake of fire. There is no room in God’s heaven for unrepentant sinners; sadly for them.
March 26th, 2010 at 8:23 pm
All sinners annihilated after death?
March 26th, 2010 at 8:34 pm
So, as many people who join those “BAWWWWWW DONKEY SUX lol/Save Bloated Public Radio!” Facebook groups?
March 26th, 2010 at 9:06 pm
Good blog
http://tramper.co.nz/?
March 26th, 2010 at 9:27 pm
21.22 hrs on 28 March 2010
Where’s a Toad when you need one? Has anyone seen the much-maligned amphibian – or has he gone back to the swamp to consult with Witthel and Keith and Jeanette, and Grass-growers anonymous and gaia and . . . ( add names as appropriate).
The question still hangs in the air, waiting, waitng, waiting. .
(A bit like Damocles sword really isn’t it)
Oh Toad. . . .your ‘fans’ are waiting . . . .
March 26th, 2010 at 9:50 pm
Pete
To respond to your question ‘All sinners annihilated after death?, the answer is no, they are condemned to a life of eternal torment in Hell (which is a very real place). As you will see in the verses below, the Bible tells of the existence of a lake of eternal fire and that sinners (those who do not acknowledge Jesus Christ as their Lord and Saviour) will be cast into it. And, of course, this is for eternity which is somewhat long (as in forever)
These references might be of interest:
Matthew 25:41 (Jesus speaking to people at final judgment), …Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels.
Revelation 14:11, And the smoke of their torment ascendeth up for ever and ever: and they have no rest day nor night…
Revelation 20:12, 15, And I saw the dead, small and great, stand before God; and the books were opened: and another book was opened, which is the book of life…And whosoever was not found written in the book of life was cast into the lake of fire.
Matthew 10:28, And fear not them which kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul: but rather fear him which is able to destroy both soul and body in hell.
Luke 12:5, But I will forewarn you whom ye shall fear: Fear him, which AFTER he hath killed hath power to cast into hell; yea, I say unto you, Fear him.
Matthew 18:8, 9 Wherefore if thy hand or thy foot offend thee, cut them off, and cast them from thee: it is better for thee to enter into life halt or maimed, rather than having two hands or feet to be cast into everlasting fire. And if thine eye offend thee, pluck it out, and cast it from thee: it is better for thee to enter into life with one eye, rather than having two eyes to be cast into hell fire.
As I said before, Eternity IS rather a long time and once you’re ‘in’ there is no way of ever getting out. Despite what the Hindu’s care to believe it’s a one-way trip and we don’t come back. Ultimately it comes down to choices – individual choices, and, at it’s simplest the choice is to fry forever, or enter into God’s glory in Heaven. Choices now made will have a very, very, very long term effect – a ‘forever’ effect if you will. I trust that you have made the correct one.
Hope this helps – thanks for asking.
March 26th, 2010 at 10:20 pm
Just a brief reminder as to the ulterior motives of the Public Service Media crowd:
March 26th, 2010 at 10:20 pm
Judge Davidson on former Immigration Service boss Mary Anne Thompson:
Yet she brought all her inlaws into the country through immigration controls.
Do our judges condone what she did in this? How can Judge Davidson praise Thompson like this?
Perhaps someone can tell us whether Thompson was not charged over the inlaws because of some sort of plea bargain.
Link:
http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/crime/3510557/Former-immigration-boss-fined-10-000
March 26th, 2010 at 10:27 pm
A laugh for the weekend…
Read the following and ponder: Does Facebook need to be renamed Fuckbook?
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/facebook/7508945/Facebook-linked-to-rise-in-syphilis.html
March 26th, 2010 at 11:38 pm
But what if god turns out to be Allah? What then?
All the Christian repenting was completely useless. Oopps, bad luck.
Or maybe it is a Mayan god. Or Jupiter. Or Zeus.
Any of them could be true. Each of them are just as likely. (or unlikely)
People believe (or believed) in Allah, Zeus, Jupiter and all the other gods the very same way you believe in your god.
March 26th, 2010 at 11:56 pm
Since we’re all about quotes about hell, Komata, and not about additions or reinterpretations of the faith, Kris K, here’s this:
“The earliest records of ancient religions in Israel, Babylon (now Iraq), and Greece all refer to a place where the souls or “shades” of people who have died go to stay. This was often depicted as somewhere deep underground. But the idea that this land of the dead was reserved to punish wrongdoers didn’t arise until some time in the first millennium BC, in tandem with the belief that this subterranean world housed an infernal (lower, inferior) god. Initially, this underground world was sometimes a place where greater gods banished lesser gods. The anti-god Ahriman, for example, of the ancient Persian religion of Zoroastrianism (7th-6th century BC), took up residence beneath the Earth in the House of the Lie, amid every sort of filth and stench, after being defeated by the supreme god, Ahura Mazda. Ancient Israelite religions depicted Belial, a demon god, as Lord of the Abyss, an undersea pit. Likewise, Moloch, a god to whom child sacrifices were made throughout the ancient Middle East, was Lord of a subterranean kingdom of flaming lava. Eventually most of these devil-realms were combined with Sheol (the “Grave”), making this Near East concept of a depository of ghosts a place of torment. The Old Testament describes Sheol as a dark and dusty city with high, impregnable walls and barred gates–a place of no return for both good and bad souls*. Not until the 6th century AD did Catholic Christianity modify the Sheol concept, articulating a vision of Hell (an Old English word meaning “covered place”) that has endured to modern times: a place where the sinful are sent to burn in eternal fire. The Bible lacks any explicit statement about Satan ruling Hell, however. It was other early Christian writings that assigned him the role of Hell’s warden.”
– The Origin of Hell as a Place of Punishment by Robert M. Price.
and another link you might be inclined to check out: http://www.allaboutjesuschrist.org/did-jesus-go-to-hell-faq.htm
Furthermore, look up the Evil God Hypothesis. Stephen Law is well-versed in the issue: http://stephenlaw.blogspot.com/search/label/problem%20of%20evil
March 27th, 2010 at 4:57 am
What’s up with these godbotherers? God simply doesn’t exist. Why is it that perfectly logical people are willing to argue about something they cannot prove – exists and controls lives, weather patterns and peoples souls etc etc…
March 27th, 2010 at 7:57 am
I don’t care about being “threatened” with eternal torment in hell. I guess it’s a bit stronger than “if you pull faces and the wind changes you’ll stay like that”, “if you don’t each your veges you won’t grow big and strong” and “if you wank you’ll go blind”. The vege thing has some scientific basis, the others are just scare tactics used on kids who don’t know any better.
I never believed the heaven and hell thing when I was a kid, it was just like another fairy story, I was fortunate my parents didn’t try and ram the frighteners down my throat, and the reverends were no more than quaint doddy old dudes.
But I know that some kids can get seriously fucked up by life after death extortion stories. Some get stuck with aspects of the threats for life, some grow up and see through the priests on power trips.
One old story does ring true, the emperor was embarrassed when he realised how foolish he had been. Does the vicar keep wearing his robes of everlasting glory, oblivious to the sham? Or does he just use it because he thinks it keeps the gullible in line?
March 27th, 2010 at 9:23 am
Clint Heine: These aren’t “perfectly logical people”. Nobody’s perfectly logical. If they were, they wouldn’t hold a belief without good evidence. As to why people believe in religion, there are many possible reasons. Some have even suggested a component is genetic, although that hasn’t been well-proven to my knowledge. I think what it comes down to are things like fear (of the presently unknown, of death and so on) and mankind’s general egocentricity (you want a creator-God which puts you as the apex of creation). Furthermore, there have been studies which show religion confirms one’s prejudices (http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn18216-dear-god-please-confirm-what-i-already-believe.html). That is to say that religion is often used to justify saying which could otherwise not be justified by rational and coherent thought.
Pete George: I posted the extract and link about hell to point out that it is an addition to the Christian faith given Kris K’s idea as to cults and Komata’s Bible quotes. As to why I suggested they and other God-believers look at the Evil God Hypothesis, it is because it shows that there are just as many similar reasons to believe in an utterly malevolent God as there are to believe in a wholly benevolent God, yet they will typically scoff at one idea because of its absurdity and embrace the other.
As to why I point these things like this out, it is because they bring their belief here, but not only does it inform what they say (which I would be fine with), it goes further into the realm of Bible-thumping, “if you don’t believe that which I believe you’re going to Hell territory”. It gets into the territory of preaching, and that shouldn’t be happening on a forum about politics.