And as for those ‘phobes that think Uganda is getting a raw deal, might I point out that the murderous and draconian Anti-Homosexuality Bill in their Parliament is nothing more than a massive diversionary tactic intended to divert attention from domestic rorting of Ugandan oil revenue by the corrupt governing National Resistance Movement. Let it also be noted that polygamy isn’t illegal in Uganda (which last tried to ban it in 2005 but left it alone due to conservative Muslim pressure) and neither is marital rape. About the only positive thing Museveni has done is get rid of the abhorrent Lords Resistance Army guerillas in the North, albeit not without torture and use of child soldiers on both sides. Unfortunately, the LRA is still active in the basket case state of Congo nextdoor.

I have met only a few men in my life who genuinely don’t seem to notice – much less care – what race other people are. Garth McVicar is one of those people.

Must just be coincidence then that his “anti-crime” stance turns into a “pro-murderer” one when the criminal is white and the victim is Maori.

I suspect the Shovel incident was simply crossed wires. I hope he tries again and does it properly this time.

Homosexuals have no more access to a ‘right’ to be queer than I have access to the ‘right’ to be addressed as ‘Sir’ .

I think its all about not being happy with themselves and thus they need some external acknowledgement of their state of sexuality. Frankly I couldnt give a flying fuck about someone elses sexuality unless it impinged on me. However with all this pressure in parliament and in the media Im starting to get a bit pissed off and I have some sympathy with the african states.

Member’s motions are commonly placed on the order paper with no intention of ever actually being moved or debated. Just seeing it in writing it a way to make a point, or congratulate someone for something.

But they are placed there before debate and discussions begin for MP’s to read?

If so then it’s not exactly true to argue MP’s and their whips had no opportunity to review motions before someone asked leave to move them and therefore must deny them promptly on a principle of not having an opportunity to consider them beforehand.

Though it remains true the motion wasn’t defeated (so no party can be said to have voted against it) as it was blocked from being brought forward.

Though I don’t find it convincing to argue that motions should only be permitted by prior agreement and whips can’t be held responsible for enforcing a friendly agreement it ought be so. It seems to me that if it’s properly notified in the paperwork and brought up in the chamber then peoples reactions to it are fair game for observers decisions and characterisations of them.

I have met only a few men in my life who genuinely don’t seem to notice – much less care – what race other people are. Garth McVicar is one of those people. The Trust has many Maori members, some of them holding executive positions at one time or another. Ironically, many of the Trusts Maori members are not victims but the family members of criminals who wish to balance the evil their sibling has done. I have personally heard Garth on many occasions assuring such women – they are usually women with a ratbag brother – that they (the siblings) have nothing to atone for, and that their brother’s wrong is not theirs.

So this Idiot fellow can say or think what he likes…he clearly knows as much about SST and its membership as that other clown with the tattooed arms (“Bummer” is it??) who does a lot of sniping on blogs but runs away if one ever seeks to physically front him.

Why does National hate puppies?

Member’s motions are commonly placed on the order paper with no intention of ever actually being moved or debated. Just seeing it in writing it a way to make a point, or congratulate someone for something.

The preparation beforehand being talked about is not the process of preparing and filing the motion, which was done, but of actively seeking out people from the other parties (the whips) and letting them know: this motion in my name, I’d really like to have it voted on on this occasion, and not just sit on the order paper until it drops off in a week(?).

I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I seek leave to move members’ motion No. 4 in my name

What was Members Motion No. 4 if no preparation was done for Chauvel speaking up? What was, and how could he refer to it if it wasn’t prepared beforehand, Members Motion No. 4?

If CC has copies of emails to the Whips then it would be good to see them.

Sure, agreed.

I don’t believe that’s the only basis for I/S’s claim. He also expressed concern over the attitude of the Trust toward manslaughter victim Pihema Cameron, attributing the Trust’s support not for the victim, but for the person accused of the murder to racial differences.