Shearer on issues

December 19th, 2011 at 11:00 am by David Farrar

NZ Herald reports:

“Why should we have another country’s flag in our top corner? I’d rather see a fern [which] for me is the national emblem. How we do that [depends] on how people want to do it.

1/1 I agree on.

“We should be moving towards a republic.”

But he added that it was not a “number one priority”.

2/2

Asked about New Zealand’s relationship with the US, he said: “I think we’ve gone back too much from where we were.

“We have a stronger voice and more respect internationally by being independent. And I don’t think the cost is that great.”

Not sure what he means here. How are we not independent at the moment? 2/3

He said he had no issue with gay marriage or same-sex adoption, and acknowledged that updating adoption laws – which the Government has said is not a priority – was long overdue.

He would have to see the detail of any bill to legalise gay marriage or same-sex adoption before voting for them but supported them in principle.

4/5. What I like about him is that he is willing to say outright that yes he supports gay marriage and same sex adoption. Goff could never quite bring himself to say that, and just would waffle about supporting civil unions and adoption law reform generally.

But he is less liberal on cannabis.

“I don’t think people should go to prison for smoking a joint but I don’t support legalising cannabis.”

He said there was merit in the Law Commission’s recommendation for a mandatory cautioning scheme.

5/6. I like the Law Commission proposed cautioning scheme.

On alcohol reform, Mr Shearer supported a split purchase age of 18 in bars and 20 in supermarkets and liquor shops.

5/7. There is no principled reason to stop a 19 year old buying a bottle of wine at a supermarket.

He said there was some evidence to clamp down on alcohol advertising, but he wanted to research the issue more.

5/8 in total. Not too bad.

Tags:

52 Responses to “Shearer on issues”

  1. Pete George (23,798 comments) says:

    Hmm, I’m 6/8 Shearer – and 7/8 Farrar, I wonder if that means they’ll keep calling me a right winger at TS.

    More likely it’s simply a win for common sense on most of these questions.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  2. 3-coil (1,199 comments) says:

    “Why should we have another country’s flag in our top corner? I’d rather see a fern [which] for me is the national emblem. How we do that [depends] on how people want to do it.”

    One thing I noticed during the RWC was the loose similarity in configuration of the flags from the Pacific countries, including Aust/NZ (possibly traceable back originally to Commonwealth origins?). This helped to define more than a geographical commonality, more a sense of family or community among the tiny inhabitants (yes, including us) of the vastness of the Pacific Ocean. I suppose updating our flag may make the NZ “anti-colonialists” feel better, but will it signal to our Pacific brethren that our “independance” is more important to us than our being a member of the Pacific community?

    My second reservation regarding the rebranding of NZ via a new flag is illustrated by the recent debacle of the Wellywood sign argument – every ad-man and his dog will be putting in their 2c worth. It will be design by committee, with the risk of the same totally naff outcome as the Windy Wellington sign (sorry Saatchi boys, but it is lame)..ie. where the solution is worse than the original problem.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  3. Manolo (14,169 comments) says:

    A vapid set of answers from an even more vapid man. However, some people call this “common-sense”.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  4. Mark (1,502 comments) says:

    7/8 for me. Manolo – he can only respond to the questions he is asked and we only see the responses that the NZ Herald wants to report on so how you get vapid out of that is an fascinating leap of logic.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  5. david c (192 comments) says:

    Manolo your comment is irony defined.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  6. Scott Chris (6,178 comments) says:

    Not bad, but fucking conservative pussy on cannabis. Booooooo!

    Fucking politics.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  7. EverlastingFire (286 comments) says:

    0/8.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  8. Pete George (23,798 comments) says:

    3-coil – a problem with the current flag is it looks like a design by a committee with very limited membership.

    Geographical commonality might group some countries under the Southern Cross but excludes more.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  9. Scott Chris (6,178 comments) says:

    David Farrar says:- “There is no principled reason to stop a 19 year old buying a bottle of wine at a supermarket.”

    So what’s the principled reason to stop a 19 year old from buying 5 grams of pot at a supermarket?

    There appears to be a blatant contradiction in your reasoning as you also advocate the prohibitive cautioning scheme. Care to explain?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  10. Other_Andy (2,676 comments) says:

    Gay marriage or same-sex adoption, legalising cannabis, becoming a republic, changing the New Zealand flag.

    Rrrrreally important issues for the 99 1 %…

    What about debt reduction, employment, immigration, education…..?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  11. Manolo (14,169 comments) says:

    So what’s the principled reason to stop a 19 year old from buying 5 grams of pot at a supermarket?

    Agreed.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  12. Manolo (14,169 comments) says:

    The title of this posting should read “Shearer on issues of minor importance”. Meanwhile, Rome burns.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  13. Viking2 (11,673 comments) says:

    Re enforces the point that there ain’t 6 degrees of separation between the Nats and labour.
    But we all knew that.

    When is DPF taking over from the Moutashed one as Press secretary for David?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  14. pollywog (1,153 comments) says:

    *yawn*…as a deeply concerned citizen i’m more interested in what colour undies he’s wearing.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  15. Tautaioleua (324 comments) says:

    This interested me online:

    The best democracies are Constitutional Monarchy’s (according to the International Democracy Index: seven of the top ten are Constitutional Monarchy’s). And of the bottom ten, the only Constitutional Monarchy is Saudi Arabia. The remaining nine are Republic’s.

    If it aint broke, don’t fix it.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  16. Nostalgia-NZ (5,318 comments) says:

    I think Shearer could have meant that NZ was more independent when the country said no to nuclear armed ship visits. We were off the xmas card list big time. If he means that we should be seen as standing alone, I agree. For much of the other stuff it’s all a bit petty – the symbolism of flags is a wretched identity crisis, and look around there are still 1000s of All Black flags displayed – enough for visitors to think that is the National flag.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  17. Jimbob (641 comments) says:

    Typical anti-American pinko. They are ten-a-penny.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  18. Murray (8,803 comments) says:

    0-8

    He fucked it up out of the blocks so screw him.

    It was good enough for Moana Ngarimu, William Malone, Ed Hillary, Jack Hinton and a host of others, its good enough for me.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  19. Daigotsu (471 comments) says:

    Shearer’s position on a Republic – that it’s a great idea but not a priority – is the same position held by every PM since 1984.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  20. Longknives (4,954 comments) says:

    “I don’t think people should go to prison for smoking a joint but I don’t support legalising cannabis.”

    For Christ’s sake- People DON’T fucking go to Prison for merely ‘Smoking a joint’….This is NZ- You can kill someone and not go to prison in this country….

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  21. minto57 (197 comments) says:

    Such fresh invigorating ideas, all of which have be paraded ad nauseum over the years.
    but wait there is more
    Too late every body has fallen asleep while the rich pricks steal the fixtures.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  22. Longknives (4,954 comments) says:

    I really don’t know why some New Zealanders think the World is magically going to stand up and take notice of them if they become a republic and put a fern on their flag- At the end of the day we are a tiny country of four million people hidden away in the corner of the world. Would anyone outside of Denmark give a toss if Denmark were to become a republic and change its flag? No?- as you were….

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  23. Other_Andy (2,676 comments) says:

    More than 22 positive puff pieces on Shearer-Labour in the New Zealand Herald in the last three weeks.

    Labour readies new front bench
    Shearer wants fern on flag
    Fran O’Sullivan: Front bench will set tone for Shearer leadership
    David Shearer: Battle-hardened in the war zones
    Shearer – peacemaking leader’s first job
    John Armstrong: New leader for long journey out of the wilderness
    Shearer sees benefit in opposition co-operation
    David Shearer or Tom Hanks?
    Is David Shearer the best person to lead Labour?
    Meteoric rise to Labour’s top spot
    Labour leader: It’s David… Shearer
    Shearer has two years, Robertson in wings
    Unfamiliar face has a difficult task
    A battle between popularity and experience
    Shearer’s ‘X-factor’ not enough to save Labour
    Ex-aid worker Shearer the perfect opposite to Key
    Shearer the one to lead Labour resurgence
    Shearer the right man
    Shearer: You need to go and make a difference
    Same old, same old won’t do it for Labour
    Shearer: Dark horse to contender
    Shearer’s move all about playing the long game

    Waddoyou make of that?
    Isn’t he a swell guy?*

    *To the extent permitted by law, APN and its information contributors and associated service providers exclude all warranties, including without limitation, as to the availability, accuracy, completeness, currency or reliability of the Material, products or services, including products or services of any third party, that are made available via the APN Network.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  24. Other_Andy (2,676 comments) says:

    And I am waiting for the following pieces:

    Shearer: Supporters claim he can walk on water.
    Shearer: Healing the sick.
    and
    Shearer: Feeding the hungy…
    Oh wait, that one has been done allready.
    “Shearer spent his professional life saving 50 million lives”
    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10773675

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  25. Tautaioleua (324 comments) says:

    Well said Longknives, the small island syndrome is well and truly burning in good old Aotearoa lol.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  26. Joseph Carpenter (214 comments) says:

    Re adoption, why is gay adoption considered so important? I believe adoption law (and policy) have to be changed radically but not because of some tiny marginal feel-good liberal purity issue. In 2010 there were 76 adoptions in NZ, only 76! in a population of 4.2 million and nearly all were to family members within one degree after being orphaned. In reality there would be less than 20 non-kin adoptions a year to even married hetero couples under current settings – gays don’t even bother. In 1969 there 2,696 adoptions in a population of 2.4 million. The reason for the huge change from 1970 onwards: no fault divorce, DPB, effective abortion on demand, altered adoption & guardianship law, the CYF act and government policy which is overtly to increase single parent and common law families and reduce adoption to the absolute minimum – arguably at the expense of the child now-a-days.

    Perhaps others know of infertile couples who would make fantastic parents and are fine with an open adoption but are absolutely shit on by CYF with zero real chance of adopting while children under supposed CYF “care and protection (is our primary duty)” are left with absolute scum parents or extended family who don’t care for them and far from loving them or even ignoring to them, actively hate and abuse them. Imagine if NZ had an extra 3-4000 native born children a year for the last 40 years saved from destruction via there own family or abortion – children who were actually actively wanted by their parents and parents who were able and prepared to look after them without state money. I can’t help but think NZ would be better for it.

    We need to seriously re-evaluate a whole lot of separate incremental liberal law and state policy changes from the last half century in light of the effect they are now wreaking on individual citizens and society as a whole – we have to stop continuing with the same old agenda and doing the same old shit and hoping “this time” the outcome will be different (= madness defined). That would be a truly “progressive” & “liberal” clean break from the past and showing leadership and a vision for the future – actually evaluating laws and state policies in light of the results and altering to suit. And if it can’t be clearly proven that state intervention “benefits” greatly exceed the “costs” then get the state the fuck out – if we do this even for minor capital spending then surely we should also do at least the same for major social engineering controls and operational spending.

    In fact we should make parliament (or an upper house?) get off their lazy arses and actually work – constitutionally there should be a 10-year sunset review clause on every single act, regulation and delegated law (including ALL existing) with a simple up/down vote at ten years: roll-over unchanged for 10 more years or amend/replace with changes – no support for either the law is binned. That would actually do something real for NZ rather than symbolically pissing round with a republic or changing the flag or making a partial increase in the liquor buying age by two years to make some people have a warm feeling in their tummy.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  27. East Wellington Superhero (1,139 comments) says:

    I think the gays will get their way. Not because a majority of NZers think gay normalisation is fair/just, but because the gays fight (and bully) harder for what they want, because liberal MPs and social commentators (whose pay cheques and success depend on the sexualised media) like to pretend they’re modern and don’t want to look like they’re ‘out of step’ with what a 24 year old reporter thinks is ‘out of step’, because saying you disagree with homosexual normalisation means you believe is some sort of objective view of sex which might have an affect on your own sexual liberty.

    I don’t think the normalisation of homosexuality is the biggest problem we face – and in terms of demographics, divorce and The Pill were the suicide bullet that Western society loaded into its gun. Not homosexuality.

    My real concern about gay marriage and gay adoption is that after the gay lobby secures these things, they’ll train their guns on the Church, and its traditional teachings on family, and attempt to ban them.

    (Which – just in case you haven’t connected the dots – show’s how illiberal the gay lobby really is.)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  28. East Wellington Superhero (1,139 comments) says:

    And the flag issue? Wowsers and busy-bodies that want to change the flag really just reveal their insecurity, not their maturity. As I’ve posted before, you don’t see the European nations wringing their hands about how similar their flags look.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  29. mara (770 comments) says:

    Shearer. What a deeply unoriginal, timid thinker. Liberalish. Sort of. Yawn.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  30. Other_Andy (2,676 comments) says:

    @Joseph Carpenter

    “Re adoption, why is gay adoption considered so important?”

    Well, in supporting it, it shows you are cool, hip, ‘with it’, ‘progressive, inclusive, emphatic and soooo trendy.
    Anybody who opposes it is old-fashioned, a troglodyte, a neocon, so passé and probably a fascist and a neo-Nazi as well.
    Now, you are not a fascist Joseph, are you?
    You better support gay adoption then don’t you!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  31. Sadu (129 comments) says:

    The problem I have is that none of these things are really priorities. Correct me if I’m wrong here, but New Zealand is not wallowing in debt because we have the wrong flag or because we don’t allow gay marriage.

    I guess it makes sense that he needs to get some practice in front of the camera before he hits the real issues, but none of this is interesting, new, or significant.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  32. dime (10,213 comments) says:

    3-coil – well said!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  33. Weihana (4,621 comments) says:

    Scott chris,

    With pot it’s all about the direction we are moving in. As i understand the cautioning scheme it would be more liberal than what we have at present and one would have to make an effort to get caught enough times to be prosecuted. Baby steps towards further liberalisation yet it can still be proposed as if its an anti cannabis policy. Smart move.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  34. Weihana (4,621 comments) says:

    Longknives,

    Theoretically you can go to jail for possession but pretty unlikely. But a conviction is still a punishment and can ruin one’s career while everyone else who binges on alcohol on friday night goes on with their lives.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  35. Weihana (4,621 comments) says:

    Other_Andy (897) Says:
    December 19th, 2011 at 12:05 pm
    Gay marriage or same-sex adoption, legalising cannabis, becoming a republic, changing the New Zealand flag.

    Rrrrreally important issues for the 99 1 %…

    What about debt reduction, employment, immigration, education…..?

    While he hasn’t proposed legalising cannabis, such a policy would be relevant to all four areas you identify. Money saved from the judicial system, policing etc could be used to pay down debt. Those who live in places of high unemployment often work to produce or supply cannabis and this could become legitimate and taxable employment. Legal cannabis would encourage overseas tourists to visit. A legal framework would also improve our ability to control supply and restrict access to under 18s thereby improving their educational prospects. :)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  36. Other_Andy (2,676 comments) says:

    “A legal framework would also improve our ability to control supply and restrict access to under 18s thereby improving their educational prospects.”

    Their is a ‘legal framework’ in place at the moment.
    Cannabis use is illegal for everybody.
    How would making it illigal for under 18s make any difference?

    http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/education/5438999/Student-drug-use-on-the-rise

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  37. Weihana (4,621 comments) says:

    ews,

    My real concern about gay marriage and gay adoption is that after the gay lobby secures these things, they’ll train their guns on the Church, and its traditional teachings on family, and attempt to ban them.

    And you accuse others of insecurity and immaturity? And btw i agree with you that a republic isn’t necessary or important. But if we are talking about people who ban things then we should look no further than the church which has a long history of invading peoples bedrooms to ban things they dont like.

    Of course some christians are so brain dead they believe a billboard of mary and a pregnancy test amounts to religious persecution.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  38. ross (1,414 comments) says:

    “Correct me if I’m wrong here, but New Zealand is not wallowing in debt because we have the wrong flag or because we don’t allow gay marriage.”

    True but why can’t we have gay marriage? We have hundreds of laws – we don’t ignore them just because we have debts. So why not allow gays to marry? In Australia, the government has recently announced they will hold a referendum on the issue, though there seems little chance that the law will be changed.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  39. wat dabney (3,840 comments) says:

    It’s not clear what the objection to gay adoption is. Is it supposed to be self-evident? (oh I know baby Jesus would cry, but then we’re talking about a racist, genocidal deity so, if anything, that’s probably a recommendation.)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  40. Nostalgia-NZ (5,318 comments) says:

    Weihana…

    ‘But if we are talking about people who ban things then we should look no further than the church which has a long history of invading peoples bedrooms to ban things they dont like.’

    And don’t forget the reverse ‘banning things they do like.’ Everything they did ban they still practised.

    Anyway the list was pretty stupid.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  41. Wally.Anchor (22 comments) says:

    Where’s number 4? Goes straight from 2/3 to 4/5

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  42. East Wellington Superhero (1,139 comments) says:

    @ Weihana

    In other jurisdictions people have been jailed for disagreeing with homosexual’-ism’. In other countries hate speech laws exist, and in NZ hate speech bills have had a crack at it. If you think there are no Labour/Green MPs that would want laws banning ‘hate’ speech against homosexualism, then you’re a bit naive.

    “the Church has a history of banning everything” is an assertion that is often never explained, or proved to be so extensive, and very anachronistic. Prior to 200 years ago most people were not educated. 100 years ago most people weren’t educated past primary school. A post-high school education – where you learn to analyse, compare, consider, and turn into action, ideas and texts, is a relatively modern thing. The printing press is only 500 years old and even after that, book were the preserve of the wealthy for some time. The scope for some to unduly influence relatively uneducated people was huge, and thus the Church – rightly or wrongly – felt a duty of care to ban certain texts. With regard the banning things in the bedroom, this is again another misunderstanding of the Catholic teaching. The Church hasn’t banned anything. I hasn’t ‘banned’ homosexuality, it hasn’t banned hasn’t banned sleeping around, it hasn’t banned The Pill. It has simply said these behaviours are not compatible with the meaning of being a human taught by the Church, and if you don’t agree – that’s fine – but you can’t be a Catholic anymore.

    I mean paternalism exists now, the Left thinks the govt is better at spending money that individuals because govt knows better. Is there a big difference?

    Putting all that aside – it was the secular humanist cultures and regimes that really perfected banning material. The communist were expert at it. Even locally some schools get apoplectic about bibles in schools and don’t want Christians around.

    I agree, some Christians are brain-dead and can’t pick their battles. The vocal Christian reactionaries are embarrassing – I think if our Bishops had a bit more backbone you’d see some more thought out commentary on important issues – not about some billboard erected by a bunch of liberal Anglicans whose legacy to NZ and society will be nil once they die out in 30 years.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  43. wat dabney (3,840 comments) says:

    I think if our Bishops had a bit more backbone you’d see some more thought out commentary on important issues

    The problem is that the Bible is full of violence and hatred. The magic pixie in the Bible is a redneck murderer.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  44. Sadu (129 comments) says:

    “True but why can’t we have gay marriage? We have hundreds of laws – we don’t ignore them just because we have debts. So why not allow gays to marry?”

    Personally I’m not fussed either way, and if there was a referendum I wouldn’t support or oppose this. We already have civil unions which is exactly the same as marriage in everything but name, so the discussion is entirely about whether or not we should slightly redefine the meaning of a word. I think half the problem is that “Civil union” is such a crap term that doesn’t have any verb tenses – there’s no equivalent word for marry / marries / marrying / married which makes it really difficult to integrate into a sentence without sounding uncomfortable.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  45. East Wellington Superhero (1,139 comments) says:

    @ wat dabney

    “The problem is that the Bible is full of violence and hatred. The magic pixie in the Bible is a redneck murderer.”

    I’m not sure what your point is. As the world is full of violence, and as most literature speaks about the violence we see in the world, it’s no surprises the bible contains violence. When you say things like ‘magic pixie’ you betray your unwillingness, and possibly immaturity, in engaging with the philosophy of Christianity.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  46. wat dabney (3,840 comments) says:

    Very fine young lady, Rebecka Green, confronts hideous Republican candidate over gays in the military.

    http://nationaljournal.com/2012-presidential-campaign/perry-faces-critics-in-decorah-iowa-over-fraking-gays-in-military-20111218

    Rebecka, you are right. They are wrong. Never give up. I salute you.

    Brilliant, brilliant young lady.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  47. wat dabney (3,840 comments) says:

    When you say things like ‘magic pixie’ you betray your unwillingness, and possibly immaturity, in engaging with the philosophy of Christianity.

    Oh sorry. Your magical pixie is real, whereas those of other belief systems are pure fantasy.

    Glad we got that cleared up.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  48. Griff (8,419 comments) says:

    “It has simply said these behaviors are not compatible with the meaning of being a human taught by the Church”

    Sorry ..you say we are not human ..slippery slope towards some of your past practices

    all in the name of the sky pixie

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  49. Nostalgia-NZ (5,318 comments) says:

    Hard to argue what the Church represent, when it is recorded that there are extreme examples that they have not practised what they preach.
    But the debate is really about what terms or names might be given to human behaviour as old as man/woman, seems stilted and redundant to ignore real life.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  50. East Wellington Superhero (1,139 comments) says:

    @ wat dabney

    Not sure where to start. Catholic Church doesn’t claim that other faiths are all wrong, but that Christianity reveal a more full explanation of true reality. You can mock it with terms like ‘sky pixie’ but this is still an immature engagement with the issue.

    @ Griff

    You distort my words. I did not say homosexuals are not human. Again, the ‘sky pixie’ phrase is an attempt to belittle the Christian claim, rather than debate it.

    @ Nostalgia-NZ

    No ones pretends the Church is perfect, or that Christians are perfect – so don’t throw that red-herring in there. I’m not sure what you mean by “names might be given to human behaviour as old as man/woman, seems stilted and redundant to ignore real life”. But if you’re suggesting homosexuality is just another flavour of life, that’s a pretty shallow investigation into the subject.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  51. Weihana (4,621 comments) says:

    # Other_Andy (901) Says:
    December 19th, 2011 at 4:37 pm

    “A legal framework would also improve our ability to control supply and restrict access to under 18s thereby improving their educational prospects.”

    Their is a ‘legal framework’ in place at the moment.
    Cannabis use is illegal for everybody.
    How would making it illigal for under 18s make any difference?

    http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/education/5438999/Student-drug-use-on-the-rise

    The current legal framework is a framework for prohibition and punishment yes, but given that history has shown that this doesn’t control supply then such a framework cannot be considered a framework to control supply. Your reference demonstrates this quite well as rates of drug use continue to rise amongst young people despite prohibition. Clear evidence that the current approach is failing to achieve its objectives because it takes the supply of such drugs completely out of any regulatory controls that would have a realistic chance of limiting access to young people.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  52. Weihana (4,621 comments) says:

    # East Wellington Superhero (613) Says:
    December 19th, 2011 at 6:46 pm

    @ Weihana

    In other jurisdictions people have been jailed for disagreeing with homosexual’-ism’. In other countries hate speech laws exist, and in NZ hate speech bills have had a crack at it. If you think there are no Labour/Green MPs that would want laws banning ‘hate’ speech against homosexualism, then you’re a bit naive.

    I suspect “jailed for disagreeing with [homosexuality]” is somewhat of an oversimplification. While I don’t support hate speech laws, generally speaking a required element of the offence is to encourage or advocate violence or hostilities towards homosexuals which is somewhat more than merely expressing an opinion on homosexuality. Moreover, these laws have had little to do with homosexuality per se but rather political correctness and they are generally applied to other groups as well such as religious groups.


    “the Church has a history of banning everything” is an assertion that is often never explained

    I don’t believe I said that.


    , or proved to be so extensive, and very anachronistic. Prior to 200 years ago most people were not educated. 100 years ago most people weren’t educated past primary school. A post-high school education – where you learn to analyse, compare, consider, and turn into action, ideas and texts, is a relatively modern thing. The printing press is only 500 years old and even after that, book were the preserve of the wealthy for some time. The scope for some to unduly influence relatively uneducated people was huge, and thus the Church – rightly or wrongly – felt a duty of care to ban certain texts. With regard the banning things in the bedroom, this is again another misunderstanding of the Catholic teaching. The Church hasn’t banned anything. I hasn’t ‘banned’ homosexuality, it hasn’t banned hasn’t banned sleeping around, it hasn’t banned The Pill. It has simply said these behaviours are not compatible with the meaning of being a human taught by the Church, and if you don’t agree – that’s fine – but you can’t be a Catholic anymore.

    I find this a disingenuous distinction given the Church’s ability to influence society and therefore government policy. In any case, even if we accept that the Church hasn’t banned anything, their advocacy against contraceptives has to be one of the most evil acts ever committed which has led to considerable suffering across the world.


    I mean paternalism exists now, the Left thinks the govt is better at spending money that individuals because govt knows better. Is there a big difference?

    I love it how the right always likes to talk of “the Left” as being parternalistic. Seems to me the Right is just as eager, if not more so, to act as Nanny Statists.

    http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/crime/6172678/Ban-slapped-on-synthetic-cannabis

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote